I will argue that Descartes’ principle of perfection which he uses to prove the existence of God is unsound. I will do this by first examining what is meant by the term ‘more reality’. After this, I will discuss the ideas surrounding ‘perfection’ and how Descartes derives a perfect God from a malevolent deceiver. I will conclude that Descartes’ use of perfection to aid God’s existence is implausible.
To deduce whether Descartes’ argument is successful in proving the existence of God, we must first consider what Descartes meant by the phrase “more reality”. Descartes states:
“Now, it is evident by the natural light of reason that there must be as much reality in an efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause. For I ask: where
…show more content…
For example, I can conceive of a unicorn by experiencing a horse and a horned animal such as a goat. However, the thought of the unicorn does not mean that it exists. The idea is fictitious and is a mere construct of the imagination; therefore it has the lowest reality. In light of this, Descartes uses this casual principle to argue for a first cause; this is God. Descartes understands the term God to mean:
“...some infinite substance, which is independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful, and by which both I, and everything else that exists (if anything else exists), were created.” (Meditations III; 38)
This substance must be infinite in order to create finite beings, modes and accidents. To create a substance, the cause must have a higher formal reality than its predecessor. For example, a stone cannot be created by anything with less formal reality such as a property like colour. Descartes considers God to be the first cause. Due to this to say that God is perfect is to suggest that he has an infinite degree of formal reality. Therefore, he has an infinite degree of objective reality. He doesn’t require or rely on anything for his own existence. He has always existed and will keep on
…show more content…
By producing a counterexample, Gaunilo shows that this illogical jump is reductio ad absurdum. Descartes commits the Naturalistic Fallacy as he claims what ought to exist, is existing. This illogical leap from the mental world to the real world implies what we can conceive to exist in the mental world, must exist in the real world. Nonetheless, it could be argued that we are describing the same being using different terminology. We are only touching on part of God’s essence and must use our rationality to understand ‘God’ better because our empirical senses deceive us. This is shown in the analogy of the blind men and the elephant. They all gather different ideas of the elephant by touching a different part of it but never completely understand it as a whole. Theoretically, they are all correct. But they must expand their knowledge to understand the elephant completely. However, Gassendi argues that like mathematical infinity, we scale up God’s perfection. By observing those we consider to be perfect beings; for example, Mother Teresa, we conclude there must be an infinite perfection. Therefore, we do not have an innate idea of God but are scaling up ideas that we perceive
Humans are finite substances so they cannot come up with the ideas of infinite substances unless it were given to them by an infinite substance. Descartes continues that while we advance gradually each day these attributes could never exist within us because we are only potentially perfect whereas God is actually perfect. Furthermore, Descartes argues that only God could be the author of his being because if it were he or his parent’s other finite substances that authored his being then he would not have wants or doubts because he would have bestowed upon himself every perfection imaginable to a finite being. Therefore, God exists because Descartes could not have thought of God because he is a finite substance thus the idea of God must have come from an infinite substance.
Descartes believes if he can verify that an immaculately munificent creator brought him into this life then his innate notions must be in some way true because God is not a deceiver and has given Descartes these ideas. For Descartes, knowledge of the existence of God will allow him to be able to understand fundamental principles of the universe. I will be deliberating Descartes’ Meditation Three on the existence of God, known as the Trademark Argument. Descartes deems there is a supreme being in each of us placed there by our creator. The rationale of the idea is to act as the mark of a tradesman within us.
René Descartes was born on 31 March 1596 in La Haye, France; a city which was later renamed as “Descartes” in his honor. his early life was not well documented until 1960, but it is known that he was familiar with mathematics and philosophy (Hatfield). Sometimes described as “The Father of Modern Philosophy”, not only considered a great philosopher, but also a great mathematician, contributed greatly for both areas – Cartesian geometry, for instance, was named in his honor (Norman 19). In his Meditations, Descartes uses a causal argumentation to prove the existence of a perfect being, who he considers to be God; these conclusions are controversial, since problems can be found in the arguments used (Hartfield). Based on the arguments used to draw his conclusions, this essay is going to discuss some apparent flaws in Descartes’s causal
Descartes describes humans as being finite and God as infinite based on formal and objective reality. Formal reality is everything that is real in the physical world and finite, while objective reality is a function of an idea’s representational content. Applying the objective reality to God, Descartes states “the idea that gives me my understanding of a supreme God… certainly has in it more objective reality than the ideas that represent finite substances.” (Descartes, Cottingham 40) Also, he believes that a cause has to have as much reality as the effect, because things cannot be formed from nothing.
The existence of God has always been an arguable topic. Descartes’ however, believed that he had proof of God’s existence through an intense analysis of the mind. Throughout this paper I will discuss what he has provided as proof and some of the complications that arise throughout his argument.
After giving his first proof for the existence of God Descartes concludes by mentioning that this proof is not always self-evident. When he is absorbed in the world of sensory illusions it is not quite obvious to him that God’s existence can be derived from the idea of God. So to further cement God’s existence Descartes begins his second proof by posing the question of whether he could exist (a thinking thing that possesses the idea of an infinite and perfect god) if God itself did not exist.
Descartes’s attempt to prove the existence of God begins with the argument that he has the clear and distinct idea of God as the “most perfect being and that there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause in the effect of that cause” (40). Therefore, this idea of God can’t be from himself, but its cause must be God. So God exists. In what follows I’ll explain these terms and why the premises seemed true to him.
Descartes makes an attempt to prove God’s existence throughout his third meditation. In his first premise he states that he has an idea of an infinitely perfect being. He uses the Principle of Sufficient reason to advance his argument; it states that everything must have a reason or cause. This put forth his second premise; that the idea of god must have a
There has been many thinkers in history who have lacked a belief in God. Some ancient Greek philosophers, such as Epicurus, obtained natural explanations for these superior miracles. Epicurus was the first to question the compatibility of God with suffering. In contrast, Descartes proves God 's existence as an external reality and that ideas of perfection or infinity cannot come from oneself. He explains that “I am a finite being and thus cannot generate these ideas on my own. I have also never experienced perfection or infinity in the world, so they cannot come from experience, either”. God is a “perfect being”.
Rene Descartes in his book Meditations on First Philosophy gives two distinct and valid arguments into the existence of God, which he explains in the Third Mediation and the Fifth Meditation. In the third meditation Descartes explains God as a substance that is eternal and extremely powerful. He calls these objective realities in which make up only a little of what God truly is. He goes onto explain that must have far more than just objective reality but formal reality as well. He knows that the concept of an everlasting and all-powerful creature couldn’t have been created in him and comes to the conclusion of something (God) being the culprit of this idea of him.
Considering this statement a God could very well exist as a creator, but Descartes states that God is a perfect being and further describes God as follows,
In A Discourse on the Method, Descartes attempted to prove the existence of God in a priori manner. He did not trust his own senses when trying to prove the existence of God and therefore he relied on the ontological argument. By making the same assumption made by Anselm, which was that an ontological argument assumes that existence is a predicate of God, Descartes is able to conclude that ‘God exists’ is true by definition because the subject ‘God’, who already contains all perfections, already contains the predicate – exists, which is a perfection. Although this may be perceived as a strong claim to believers, many such as Gaunilo would have disagreed. Descartes postulates his argument in the fourth part of his Discourse in order to try and prove the existence of God. One must discuss why one feels Descartes attempted to do so and exactly how convincing his claim is. However, before one can understand his claim, it is important to grasp an idea of the background that Descartes was writing from when he wrote the Discourse and the meaning of proof.
The highest degree of reality involves the infinite. The infinite represents substances that are unbounded and possess no conceivable or tangible limits in any of their aspects or qualities. The only example of this for Descartes would be an entity of omnipotence, who would be all knowing, all powerful, and that of which no greater can be conceived, in other words God.
Upon elaboration, Renatus suggests that were he to have an idea that is so objectively real, that its reality is in fact greater than he, than he could not have caused it (42). This implies that a greater being, such as God, must have caused it. Renatus is quick to conclude that, because of God’s characteristics, which are definitely ideas much more objective than himself, God must necessarily exist (45). These traits of God are that his substance is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and is the creator of all life (45). The necessity of God’s existence is the first proof that Descartes’ meditations. It’s determined to be a “necessity” because it is suggested that it
From this definite foundation Descartes tries to prove that there is something external to the mind. So he states the law of casualty. This basically says that nothing can be created from nothing, and that the less perfect can not create something more perfect or better than itself. Then if there is an idea in our minds that we didn’t create, something else created it. If God is more perfect than us, then we could not have created God but God created us. Descartes then wrote about the idea of God. He said that God is infinite and could not have been created by us because God is more perfect than us thus undoubtable and certain. The idea that God exists disproves the Evil Genius theory therefore proves the existence of an external world.