Does Descartes successfully offer a proof for the existence of God in Meditation 3 Essay Example

Does Descartes successfully offer a proof for the existence of God in Meditation 3? Paper Does Descartes successfully offer a cogent evidence for the being of God in Meditation 3? That Descartes’ cogent evidence for the being of God is still being debated today might be taken as grounds of its hardiness as a cogent evidence. This essay will show that this would be an wrong premise. Strictly talking, Descartes does non offer a cogent evidence for God’s being in Meditation III, he offers an maxim, which, though it can take the signifier of a formal cogent evidence, the formal facet of it is merely intended to unclutter the manner for clear and distinguishable perceptual experience of that which is axiomatic: viz. , God’s being. This essay will demo that this maxim is surprisingly robust, if taken on its on footings. The rule statements over Descartes cogent evidences are non inquiries of logic, but of reading: they are statements non over the position of the cogent evidence, but what precisely should travel in Descartes cogent evidence. This essay will take another attack after reexamining Descartes responses to some of these inquiries. It w ill be shown that Descartes does non successfully offer a cogent evidence for the being of God because the impression of clear and distinguishable perceptual experience and the removed methodological individuality that Descartes uses to turn out the cogent evidence is wrong. To understand Descartes statement we must locate it in the footings of the other books of the speculations. Descartes has proved he is a intelligent thing. However, he is tormented by the impression of a God who may be lead oning him. Even though he has asserted that truly certain cognition is come-at-able through intuition and tax write-off, he still can non get the better of the shrewish uncertainty that the metaphysical position of this cognition is false. In order to get the better of the possibility of this fallacious God, he searches for another ( Descartes: 1976:158 ) omnipotent being: I must analyze whether there is a God, for if this non be known, it seems I can neer be wholly certain about anything else. We will write a custom essay sample on Does Descartes successfully offer a proof for the existence of God in Meditation 3? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Does Descartes successfully offer a proof for the existence of God in Meditation 3? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Does Descartes successfully offer a proof for the existence of God in Meditation 3? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer To transport out this scrutiny he relies on the truth of his intuitions, Namely, at the start of book III, he asserts ( ibid: 68-69 ) : Whatever method of cogent evidence I use, I am ever brought back to the fact that it is merely what I clearly and clearly perceive that wholly convinces me. Some of the things I clearly and clearly perceive are obvious to everyone, while others are discovered merely by those who look more closely and look into more carefully ; but one time they have been discovered, the latter are judged to be merely every bit certain as the former. It is this thought of clear and distinguishable perceptual experiences as being true that Descartes uses to turn out the being of God. To make so he uses merely the tools he has antecedently proved: that we are believing things, that the physical universe, if it exists, is mutable, and that assorted thoughts appear before him. Descartes sets out to demo that being can non be separated from God. To make this, he relies on the old medieval differentiation between being and kernel, which holds that we can cognize something without cognizing whether is exists. This differentiation holds for all things apart from God, whose kernel is entirely to be: therefore, Descartes claims, necessary being ( being which is for itself ) is contained in the thought of God. When he combines this with the thought that what I clearly and clearly perceive to be contained in the thought of something is true of that thing, so we can clearly and clearly see that necessary being is contained in the thought of God, and hence, God exists. It is interesting to observe that in the answers Descartes focal points on the relationship between necessary being and God, for he believes if you have merely learned Descartes’ method of concluding it is merely necessary to understand the necessary being refering to a supreme being to intuit him. In this focal point, he argues that there is a conceptual nexus between all signifiers of flawlessness. For case, one can non gestate of an almighty being as other than bing for itself: it must hold necessary being for it depended on something outside of itself it could non be almighty, its being would be possible or contingent. However, for Descartes, the differentiation between kernel and being is merely a rational differentiation that pertains to believe. For case, thought and extension are the kernels of head and organic structure severally, while rational differentiations pertain to properties, it is but a belongings of idea. Thus, for Descartes, the difference between God and other animals is non one of type but of class of being: it is the necessary being of God that marks him out. Along with this statement, Descartes provides a reworking of what is known as the cosmogonic statement. This takes its root from Aristotle’s great concatenation of being. This relies upon a differentiation between formal world, where all thoughts have the same formal world because they all have the same position when they appear in the head, and nonsubjective world. Humans as finite animals have limited nonsubjective world, such that they are dependent existences, as one goes up the concatenation of being, one finds a greater nonsubjective world, and when this alteration ends, we needfully happen God. A concluding statement that Descartes makes, reworked in the answers, is that he has an thought of a perfect being in his head. After separating such an thought from adventitious and factitious thoughts, he concludes it must be unconditioned. In every instance, given clear and distinguishable perceptual experience, there must be at last as much world in cause as there is in consequence. He besides knows that he is imperfect. Given that one is imperfect one can non be responsible for the thought of flawlessness that one has and, given that there much be every bit least as much world in cause as there is in consequence, whatever caused the thought of the perfect being must be perfect. We can comprehend a series of jobs with all these statements. For case, Descartes relies upon clear and distinguishable perceptual experience to intuit godly presence. Yet, it is exactly because Descartes is in metaphysical uncertainty that he requires the presence of God to vouch his perceptual experiences. This therefore seems like an illustration of round logical thinking. One possible declaration to this job is to separate, with Kenny ( 1970:688 ) between psychological uncertainty ( which can be opposed to certain perceptual experiences ) and metaphysical uncertainty ( which can be opposed to the truth of what is clearly perceived ) . In this account, God’s being is proved by psychological clear and distinguishable perceptual experiences, and this being in bend provides the metaphysical warrant for the truth of the perceptual experiences. Such an account emphasises that Descartes theory is a correspondence theory instead than a coherency theory as some recent observers hav e alleged. However, this is non a satisfactory solution to the job. It is non true to state that merely metaphysical propositions pertain to truth: if one clearly and clearly perceives a phenomenon so one believes it to be true. Therefore, the divide between these two types of uncertainty can non be found in their truth content. Kenny suggests a more promising attack is to analyze them as different propositions. For case, while Descartes allows that 2+3=5 might be a error, and he may hold been tricked by a deceiving God, he does non let that it could be incorrect. Descartes could non claim such a thing within his ain theory and intend it. This is to state that psychological propositions are perceptual experiences of peculiar propositions, while God’s being is used to set up the general proposition that whatever I see clearly and clearly is true: the uncertainty that Descartes has of clear and distinguishable perceptual experience is a 2nd order inexplicit uncertainty. Therefore, Descarte s can be seen to turn out God’s being in this instance without being round. There is a farther job nevertheless, with the cosmogonic statement. In Anselm’s first version of the statement, he claims being in built into the supreme being, much as Descartes does. For Anslem, even if he concedes necessary being is conceptually inseparable from God, nil about this proves anything about phenomena in the existent universe. Descartes utilizations clear and distinguishable perceptual experience to get the better of this expostulation: that what one can comprehend clearly and clearly in the existent universe has possible being, and given God’s kernel is bing, he has necessary being. This differentiation is besides used to rebut the treatment of Caterus, who claims that being does non needfully follow from gestating an kernel. For case, we could believe of an bing king of beasts, and it does non follow that it exists. Descartes in the answers responds to this by explicating that if something can be clearly and clearly perceived as a construct it has a pos sible being, but of class it is non necessary that it exists because it does non hold necessary being as God does. Descartes besides relies on this differentiation in his inexplicit response ; in the answers to the ulterior unfavorable judgment made my Kant, that being is neither a belongings nor a predicate. Kant ( 1990 ) argues that there is no difference between 100 thalers and the construct of 100 thalers: when we think of 100 thalers, we think of it really bing. Being is simply the positing of things, and therefore when we say God exists all we are making is stating that God is a thing in the universe, with Russell we could so claim: being decently analyse in a quantifier and non a predicate. However, Descartes even here is resilient. Descartes agrees being does non add anything to something, he can merely answer that Kant ignores the gradient of being ( between contingent to necessary ) we explored earlier. A farther job is how one ascertains what is clearly and clearly perceived. Descartes holds one can non clearly and clearly perceive, for case, that of a square trigon. He justifies this commonalty of human clear and distinguishable perceptual experiences because we all have an unconditioned thought of God, and this God is non a cheat, and therefore it is sensible to presume that everyone has similar thoughts of clear and distinguishable perceptual experience. However, can we state this is true? For if it were to be proved there were no clear and distinguishable perceptual experiences, so we could surely non turn out God’s being. Furthermore, such an analysis would sabotage the Cartesian witting topic who made it possible to believe such a thing. This is exactly the undertaking that Heidegger efforts. He notes ( 1962:48 ) : We the cogito amount Descartes had claimed that he was seting doctrine on a new and steadfast terms. But what he left undetermined when he began in this radical manner was the sort of being which belongs to theRESs cogitans, or – more exactly – the sense of the being of the sum. What Heidegger does is sabotage the thought that the relationship to the universe ( which Descartes considers besides in footings of the relation to God ) is a relationship to a topic to an object by manner of mental significances. This review can be made, briefly given the bounds of the infinite, in five ways. Descartes relies on an apprehension of life that is expressed: 1 must clearly and clearly perceive something for it to be true. Heidegger argues critical contemplation is of import in some state of affairss but should non hold the dominant function it has had in doctrine. As Heidegger ( 1971:55 ) notes: every decision†¦ bases itself on something non mastered, something concealed, confounding ; else it would neer be a decision. That which is most of import to us is non available for critical contemplation: these are exactly the background patterns, the shared cultural significances, that allow for a similarity of understanding about what is clearly and clearly perceived. Y et if something has structured what it is to clearly and clearly perceive, so it could be possible that such perceptual experiences are non the belongings of God: they can non be represented, and therefore one must ever pattern hermeneutics within the hermeneutic circle. Descartes besides requires the head to hold knowing content: we experience ourselves as self-contained topics with mental content and an independent object. Such a divide is necessary for the cogent evidence of God’s being, concerned as it is with turn outing from an innate thought that it has an nonsubjective topographic point. Heidegger argues that this status is an intermediate status that presupposes a more cardinal manner of being-in-the-world, and this being in the universe is non grounded in self-sufficing beginnings but is ever already within the universe. If we understand adult male as within Heidegger’s hermeneutic circle, acted on by a universe as we are moving, it becomes difficult to warrant the methodological individuality that Descartes requires to turn out the being of God. Thus, while we can see his cogent evidence is unusually sophisticated and resilient on its ain footings, and therefore can be thought a successful cogent evidence, it is an wrong cogent evidence as at least one of the premises is wrong. Bibliography: Christofidou, A.Descartes Dualism: Correcting Some Misconceptions.Journal of the History of Philosophy. Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 215-238. Descartes, R. 1984:The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. ( explosive detection systems ) Cottingham, J. A ; Stoothoff, R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Descartes, R. 1976:Oeuvres.( explosive detection systems. ) Adam, C. A ; Tannery, P. Paris: J. Vrin/CNRS. Des Chene, D.On Laws and Ends: A Response to Hattab and Menn.Positions on Science. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 144-163. Doney, W. 1955: The Cartesian Circle.Journal of the History of Ideas.Sixteen, pp. 324-338. Frankfurt, H. 1962: Memory and the Cartesian Circle.The Philosophicl Review. Vol. 70, No. 4. , pp. 504-511. Gorham, G. 2002: Cartesian Causing: Continuous, Instantaneous, Overdetermined. Journal of the History of Philosophy. Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 389-423. Hattab, H. The Problem of Secondary Causation in Descartes: A Response to Des Chene.Positions on Science. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 93-118. Heidegger, M. 1971:Poetry, Language Thought.New York: Harper and Row. Heidegger, M. 1962:Bing and Time. New York: Harper and Row. Kant, I.1990.Critique of Pure Reason. trans. London: Macmillan. Kenny, A. 1970: The Cartesian Circle and the Eternal Truths.The Journal of Philosophy.Vol. 67, No.19, pp. 685-700. Pessin, A. 2003: Descartes s Nomic Concurrentism: Finite Causation and Divine Concurrence.Journal of the History of Philosophy.Vol. 41, No.1, pp. 25-49. Stoothoff, R. 1989: Descartes’ Dilemma.The Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 39, No. 156, pp. 294-307.