Descartes
Many readers follow Descartes with fascination and pleasure as he contends in the midst of all the skepticism in the first two Meditations. Descartes refutes the skeptics by means of his famous axiom, “cogito, ergo sum”. From this premise that a clear consciousness of his thinking proved his own existence, he argued the existence of God. However, many readers find themselves baffled and repulsed when they come to his proof for the existence of God in Meditation three and five. In large measure this change of attitude results from a myriad of factors. One is that the proof is complicated in ways which the earlier discourse is not. Secondly, the complications include the use of abstract mental constructs for which the reader is overwhelmingly unprepared-including such doctrines as the Cartesian version of the Great Chain of Being, the heirloom theory of causality, and confusing terms that are used in technical ways which requires clarification. Lastly, we live in an age which is largely skeptical of the whole enterprise of giving proofs for the existence of God. Descartes’s cosmological argument of causality raises questions among critics in the Preface of the meditation about what he meant by the term “idea” and other key c . . .
He is sure that it neither came from his senses nor himself. For how would I understand that I doubt and that I desire, that is, that I lack something and that I am not wholly perfect, unless there were some idea in me of a more perfect being, by comparison with which I might recognize my defects? (38) Descartes’s claim that there’s more reality in infinite substance than in finite rests on a medieval conception of degrees of reality. So, even those inclined to concur with the conclusion of Descartes’ proof are often skeptical and raise objections about the method which he employs to validate his argument for the existence of God. With the proof of his existence done, he unfolds at sufficient length his chief argument for the existence of God. His first point in rebutting this possibility is to note that “just as the objective mode of being belongs to ideas by their very nature, so the formal mode of being belongs to the causes of ideas, at least to the first and preeminent ones, by their very nature” (37). After all, one cannot weave fantasies from nothing. The first is the principle of sufficient reason. One might even worry that it’s more likely to be yet another example of humanity’s capacity for self-deceptive, wishful thinking. God’s essence entails his existence. With this in mind, Descartes states that no one would have enough power to maintain their own existence; therefore there must be a higher being. What is more perfect cannot proceed from what is less perfect; otherwise, there would be a deficit of perfection. So Descartes says, “It is clear to me by the light of nature that the ideas that are in me are like images that can easily fail to match the perfection of the things from which they have been drawn, but which can contain nothing greater or more perfect” (37). Whether Descartes’ arguments were mere example of humanity’s self-deceptive, wishful thinking are irrelevant to my thoughts as the reader and a Christian. Descartes believes that this argument juxtaposed with the definition of God’s essence is sufficient to quiet his critics.
Common topics in this essay:
God Descartes, Discourse Descartes, God God, Meditation Descartes, God Descartess, Doubt Analysis, God Meditation, Meditations Descartes, Omniscient God, existence god, idea god, God Surely, gods existence, god descartes, idea perfect, gods essence, god exists, idea god idea, reality infinite, argument existence, god idea, argument existence god, reality infinite substance, idea god god, infinite substance finite, |