Rene Descartes Trademark Argument
It is not obtained through sense perceptions. This is a reason that supports his claim that finite substances, such as the human mind, are not capable of creating such a omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infinite, omniscient God. He goes on to claim that the idea of God is innate, a concept that is present, or “imprinted”, in the human mind from birth. Descartes strongly believes that innate ideas are the necessary things that provide a reliable basis for all metaphysical knowledge. The idea of God is clearly and distinctly perceived. Descartes does admit, however, that he cannot grasp the thought of God’s existence, but that he merely understands it. Due to his conclusion that God ultimately exists, he is now able to trust the external world with
…show more content…
metaphysical certainty. The idea of God is innate and therefore his existence provides a reliable basis for knowledge. This conclusion was needed in order for Descartes to confirm the truth of his clear and distinct ideas and ultimately bring the things he had cast into doubt back into truth. A popular objection to Descartes’ argument for God’s existence appears in the Objections and Replies section of his book. The objector proposes the following statement that “If there is no idea of God (now it has not been proved that it exists), as seems to be the case, the whole of this argument collapses.” (Chavez-Arvizo, E – pp. 209) This objection suggests that the concept of God has still not actually been proven, and if it ends up being the case that God does not exist, then Descartes’ entire argument for trusting clear and distinct ideas does not work. Descartes goes on to reply to the objection by saying that there is an idea of God, and there is, then the whole of the objection collapses. He basically turned the whole objection around in just one sentence. A vast majority have argued over time that Descartes’s proof for the existence of God in his “Trademark Argument” seems to fall into what is now considered to be the “Cartesian Circle”. The Cartesian Circle is claimed to be a priori argument, i.e. knowledge that is obtained through logical deduction, made by Descartes in his attempts to prove God’s existence. The claims found within the Cartesian Circle go as follows. The first claim, to put it simply, is that we can only trust our clear and distinct ideas if God exists. The second claim is that we are able to know that God exists because we clearly and distinctly perceive the idea of God (Newman, p. 6.2). It is notable that the first claim is ambiguous. If one is to accept that both of these claims are true, and that this was what Descartes had actually intended in his argument, then one will get caught in a circle. Due to this type of circular reasoning, it is incorrect to state that Descartes’s “proof” for God’s existence is valid. Other interpretations of Descartes’ Trademark Argument typically keep the same first and second premise, however, they will add something to the first premise in order to make it avoid circular reasoning. One example of this is the “Bounded Doubt interpretation”. The first premise for this interpretation is “The conclusion that an all-perfect God exists is derived from premises that are clearly and distinctly perceived — indeed, premises belonging to a special class of truths immune to doubt.” The second premise is “The general veracity of propositions that are clearly and distinctly perceived is derived from the conclusion that an all-perfect God exists” (Newman, p. 6.2). It is explained that by adding in the “special class of truths” it narrows it down from being all truths to specific ones, i.e. God’s existence and the self. From this interpretation, it is easier to see and better understand how Descartes had reached his conclusion. From when he had stated earlier in the Meditation, these truths have come to the “natural light” that Descartes had mentioned. However, although this interpretation does avoid circular reasoning, it does open up further arguments in which more premises are needed. Descartes is a highly regarded philosopher, and for good reason. Just the pure fact that he “goes against the grain” from what he had originally been taught is admirable. His work, in a way, is inspiring to those who have read it in the sense that it can have the ability to influence you to question what it is that you are being or have been told to be true. From the understanding of Descartes that I have obtained over time, it appears that it all boils down to the way his arguments are interpreted by his readers. I believe that if one is to just look at the Trademark Argument without pulling in information that becomes known in his later Meditations, or even what had later been added into the Objections and Replies section at the end of his book, his argument does appear at first to take on circular reasoning. If someone is to take a different interpretation, like the Bounded Doubt interpretation explained by Newman, it is possible to avoid circular reasoning. It does, however, have need for further explanation and thus leaves the argument itself open-ended. With this, I will say that from the initial statement of the Trademark Argument, it is invalid. However, I do not reject the fact that his second argument for God’s existence, the “Ontological Argument” as coined by Immanuel Kant, which appears in his Fifth Meditation, falls through the same logical flaw as the Trademark Argument does. I believe that his Meditations do follow a specific order, and the order is so crucial to the understandings that Descartes reaches. It is also important to make sure that readers also pay attention to the Objections and Replies of Descartes. In those replies, it is easier for readers to be able to grasp a better understanding of what Descartes believed and what counter-arguments to his beliefs were. Descartes’ Trademark Argument is ultimately concluded to be invalid.
However, just because this one argument brought up by Rene Descartes proved to be invalid, it does not mean that it is impossible for anyone to know that God exists. It just means that this specific proof does not work. Descartes’ Fifth Meditation further goes on to advance the proof of God’s existence, in the Ontological Argument, but that argument will be saved for another time. From my standpoint on this matter, I do not believe that God’s existence is something that can be proven through logic. There are too many widespread differences across faiths and non-faiths as to what God actually is and whether or not this being exists. In reference to Kierkegaard’s work, he led to the claim that it is possible to have faith in God, but it is not possible to believe in God (McDonald, p. 5). My opinion is most commonly related with that of Kierkegaard’s, that God is something that is beyond logic, proof, and reason. Descartes did have those who objected to his Meditations. One person who has written him her objection was Princess Elizabeth. The Princess remarked that Descartes not explain how the pineal gland, which is a physical thing, could interact with the mind, a non-physical thing creating the “Mind-Body
Union”. To this objection, Descartes replied that the interaction between the mind and body just happen. It is something that is so clear and distinct to us through our sense perceptions and it stimulates our minds so much to the point that it cannot be ignored. Drawing from the response Descartes provides that this interaction “just happens” I believe that, in a very similar way, the same can be said about having faith in God. It just happens.
metaphysical certainty. The idea of God is innate and therefore his existence provides a reliable basis for knowledge. This conclusion was needed in order for Descartes to confirm the truth of his clear and distinct ideas and ultimately bring the things he had cast into doubt back into truth. A popular objection to Descartes’ argument for God’s existence appears in the Objections and Replies section of his book. The objector proposes the following statement that “If there is no idea of God (now it has not been proved that it exists), as seems to be the case, the whole of this argument collapses.” (Chavez-Arvizo, E – pp. 209) This objection suggests that the concept of God has still not actually been proven, and if it ends up being the case that God does not exist, then Descartes’ entire argument for trusting clear and distinct ideas does not work. Descartes goes on to reply to the objection by saying that there is an idea of God, and there is, then the whole of the objection collapses. He basically turned the whole objection around in just one sentence. A vast majority have argued over time that Descartes’s proof for the existence of God in his “Trademark Argument” seems to fall into what is now considered to be the “Cartesian Circle”. The Cartesian Circle is claimed to be a priori argument, i.e. knowledge that is obtained through logical deduction, made by Descartes in his attempts to prove God’s existence. The claims found within the Cartesian Circle go as follows. The first claim, to put it simply, is that we can only trust our clear and distinct ideas if God exists. The second claim is that we are able to know that God exists because we clearly and distinctly perceive the idea of God (Newman, p. 6.2). It is notable that the first claim is ambiguous. If one is to accept that both of these claims are true, and that this was what Descartes had actually intended in his argument, then one will get caught in a circle. Due to this type of circular reasoning, it is incorrect to state that Descartes’s “proof” for God’s existence is valid. Other interpretations of Descartes’ Trademark Argument typically keep the same first and second premise, however, they will add something to the first premise in order to make it avoid circular reasoning. One example of this is the “Bounded Doubt interpretation”. The first premise for this interpretation is “The conclusion that an all-perfect God exists is derived from premises that are clearly and distinctly perceived — indeed, premises belonging to a special class of truths immune to doubt.” The second premise is “The general veracity of propositions that are clearly and distinctly perceived is derived from the conclusion that an all-perfect God exists” (Newman, p. 6.2). It is explained that by adding in the “special class of truths” it narrows it down from being all truths to specific ones, i.e. God’s existence and the self. From this interpretation, it is easier to see and better understand how Descartes had reached his conclusion. From when he had stated earlier in the Meditation, these truths have come to the “natural light” that Descartes had mentioned. However, although this interpretation does avoid circular reasoning, it does open up further arguments in which more premises are needed. Descartes is a highly regarded philosopher, and for good reason. Just the pure fact that he “goes against the grain” from what he had originally been taught is admirable. His work, in a way, is inspiring to those who have read it in the sense that it can have the ability to influence you to question what it is that you are being or have been told to be true. From the understanding of Descartes that I have obtained over time, it appears that it all boils down to the way his arguments are interpreted by his readers. I believe that if one is to just look at the Trademark Argument without pulling in information that becomes known in his later Meditations, or even what had later been added into the Objections and Replies section at the end of his book, his argument does appear at first to take on circular reasoning. If someone is to take a different interpretation, like the Bounded Doubt interpretation explained by Newman, it is possible to avoid circular reasoning. It does, however, have need for further explanation and thus leaves the argument itself open-ended. With this, I will say that from the initial statement of the Trademark Argument, it is invalid. However, I do not reject the fact that his second argument for God’s existence, the “Ontological Argument” as coined by Immanuel Kant, which appears in his Fifth Meditation, falls through the same logical flaw as the Trademark Argument does. I believe that his Meditations do follow a specific order, and the order is so crucial to the understandings that Descartes reaches. It is also important to make sure that readers also pay attention to the Objections and Replies of Descartes. In those replies, it is easier for readers to be able to grasp a better understanding of what Descartes believed and what counter-arguments to his beliefs were. Descartes’ Trademark Argument is ultimately concluded to be invalid.
However, just because this one argument brought up by Rene Descartes proved to be invalid, it does not mean that it is impossible for anyone to know that God exists. It just means that this specific proof does not work. Descartes’ Fifth Meditation further goes on to advance the proof of God’s existence, in the Ontological Argument, but that argument will be saved for another time. From my standpoint on this matter, I do not believe that God’s existence is something that can be proven through logic. There are too many widespread differences across faiths and non-faiths as to what God actually is and whether or not this being exists. In reference to Kierkegaard’s work, he led to the claim that it is possible to have faith in God, but it is not possible to believe in God (McDonald, p. 5). My opinion is most commonly related with that of Kierkegaard’s, that God is something that is beyond logic, proof, and reason. Descartes did have those who objected to his Meditations. One person who has written him her objection was Princess Elizabeth. The Princess remarked that Descartes not explain how the pineal gland, which is a physical thing, could interact with the mind, a non-physical thing creating the “Mind-Body
Union”. To this objection, Descartes replied that the interaction between the mind and body just happen. It is something that is so clear and distinct to us through our sense perceptions and it stimulates our minds so much to the point that it cannot be ignored. Drawing from the response Descartes provides that this interaction “just happens” I believe that, in a very similar way, the same can be said about having faith in God. It just happens.