In Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy, he offers two main arguments from which he concludes the existence of God. In the Third Meditation, Descartes proposes his metaphysical argument, which states that God must exist, because his real existence is the only cause, which could have produced Descartes own idea of God. In the Fifth Meditation, Descartes contends that existence is contained in Gods essence, so a non-existent God is by definition, a contradiction. This paper will analyze the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments, and will contend that the metaphysical argument, while flawed, is more credible than Descartes ontological argument. I will show that the metaphysical argument is the more successful of the two because of its own virtues and because of serious deficiencies in the ontological argument. Descartes posits his metaphysical argument in Meditation Three, where he begins his reflection by considering the source of all of his ideas.
He notes that all his ideas are equally real in the sense that they are all ” simply modes of thought.” However, not all of his ideas are endowed with an equal magnitude of objective reality, meaning that all of his ideas may not represent something which really exists. He then concludes “that it is manifest by the natural light that” if the object of an idea of something involves some level of reality, the idea must be caused by that which has a greater or equal level of reality. Descartes uses this foundation to reason that since his idea of an all-perfect God, who is an infinite substance, contains more reality than he thinks he possesses, he cannot be the source of that idea. The idea must be caused by something which has as much perfection and reality as the object of its idea. By Descartes definition of that which is “supremeinfinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of all things,” this cause of his idea must be God. One of the virtues of this argument is its validity. Descartes clearly enumerates his premises: he has an idea of an infinite and perfect God ideas have causes which have objective reality, which is equal to that of the object of the idea he could not have produced his own idea of the infinite God must have produced his idea of the infinite If these premises are true, his argument is a successful and sound one.
The Essay on Ontological Argument for God’s existence
To asses the strengths of the Ontological Argument for Gods existence, we firstly need to understand what it entails. The Ontological Argument looks at proof ‘A Priori’, which is Analytical truth, reason based proof. This can be explained by saying 1+1=2. We know this to be true, as it is based on reasoning, and is a logical statement. This can be seen as a strength of the Ontological ...
Like the ontological argument, the premises of this work draw a lot of objections. Yet Descartes maintains the strength of this an inductive argument by addressing some of the most potentially damaging objections to his metaphysical argument. Descartes whole metaphysical argument presupposes that he has an idea of an all-perfect, infinite God. Yet the thesis that Descartes finite mind can perceive the infinite lends itself to powerful controversy. One could explicitly challenge Descartes in the following manner: It is inconsistent to maintain that one has a clear idea of an infinite and perfect God. Because the individuals mind is by Descartes own admission, finite, infinity is inconceivable to the individual.
Descartes argument can withstand such criticism if we are precarious in our interpretation of what may constitute the idea of an infinite being. Descartes explains that “it does not matter that I do not grasp the infiniteit is enough that I understand the infinite.” This divide between grasping and understanding may seem vague, but it is crucial to the legitimacy of the metaphysical argument. Descartes understanding of the infinite is an acceptable starting point from which he can proceed to search for the cause of his idea of the infinite. Yet his simultaneous inability to grasp the infinite conciliates the relation of a finite intellect to the incomprehensible nature of the infinite. Descartes advances his argument by illustrating the theory that his idea of the infinite must have been caused by that which has infinite reality and perfection, namely, God. Descartes belief welcomes the contention that an idea of infinity need not be caused by the infinite, so long as one can contemplate the infinite as that which is not finite. Since the individual is finite, one need not look outside of ones self to find a cause for an idea which lacks the property of being finite. In the case of false ideas, we may indeed have the idea of a positive quality which is really just formed from the lack of some positive real quality.
The Term Paper on Descartes God Idea Cause Argument
Topic 4 - The Existence of God I Once Descartes has 'proved' his existence by way of the Cogito argument, and has determined what it is that belongs to his essence of being a thinking thing, he must move to examining questions about the world around him. However, before doing this, he thinks it better to examine the question of the existence of God. If he can prove that he was created by a ...
Descartes explains, “if it is true that cold is nothing but the absence of heat, the idea which represents it to me as something real and positive deserves to be called false.” Descartes then qualifies the infinite as a true idea, which cannot be produced by experiencing a privation of its contradiction. He offers a strong logical explanation to support his position. He says that the idea of the infinite must necessarily exist prior to the idea of the finite because otherwise, the individual would have no standard by which to say that he or she lacks or desires anything. All Descartes really needs to maintain is that an objective, finite cause is insufficient in accounting for the infinite and finite ideas we have. It does not damage Descartes position if it is shown that our understanding of the infinite and of the finite might rely on each other simultaneously. While these two keen counter-objections solidify the basis for Descartes argument, not all of his counter-objections are as acceptable. To Descartes, it is obvious that “for a given idea to contain such and such objective reality, it must surely derive it from some cause which contains at least as much formal reality.” Descartes readers have a right to doubt his clear and distinct perception, including his observation that Gods essence must involve existence.
Descartes explicitly recognizes that “the way [he is] made makes him prone to frequent error.” The fact that Descartes is ever prone to error is necessarily a concession that there is some deficiency in his intellect which causes that error. Descartes may not legitimately lay claim to a perfectly clear and distinct perception after he recognizes that that same perception is the product of a fallible intellect. Descartes defends himself in this respect by maintaining that that none of his fallible perceptions ever struck him as clear and distinct in the first place. But the sole fact that Descartes clear and distinct perceptions have not yet proven themselves false does not necessitate that they are true. Essentially, the only credibility with which Descartes can back up his perceptions, is the fact that he clearly and distinctly perceives that whatever he clearly and distinctly perceives must be true. This begs the question and leaves any reader who does not share his clarity of perception at a loss.
The Essay on Sensation Perception and Attention
Sensation, perception, and attention are crucial when working in a learning team. What we sense, how we perceive, and how attentive we are to the task at hand are all extremely important. What we sense will not always be the same thing. How we perceive an assignment or how we perceive each other will differ. The attention that we pay to detail or to each other will also differ. Sensation, ...
Besides Descartes reliance on his clear and distinct perception, there are other viable objections to the ontological argument which he is unable to conquer. Descartes claims there is no inconsistency in his derivation of Gods real existence from what must originate as a conceptual property of a conceptual nature. Descartes argues that any attribute which can be predicated is an acceptable property of somethings nature. On one hand, Descartes is right; real existence meets the fundamental criteria for being a property in the sense that it describes. But as existence still functions grammatically, this argument wont have the appearance of a logical predicate. Hence, Descartes may use semantics to draw existential conclusions from conceptual premises, but he has no basis to claim his conclusion is logically accurate.
In the metaphysical argument, I have shown that Descartes is able to logically address serious criticisms, and his resort to clear and distinct perception is detrimental, yet secondary. In the ontological argument, however, Descartes relies on his clear and distinct perception to substantiate his most fundamental statements and the fact that something appears to be clear and distinct is not enough to substantiate ones claims. If one grants Descartes the truth-value of his clear and distinct perceptions, his ontological argument still gives the reader adequate opportunity to can challenge the logical cogency of the argument. These flaws discredit the legitimacy of the ontological argument and support the metaphysical arguments qualifications as the more successful of the two.
The Essay on A Little Literature: Reading, Writing, Argument
“A Little Literature: Reading, Writing, Argument” is a book that spans across multiple genres of literature and allows the reader to get a taste of classical and contemporary issues regarding the different values of society and how they evolve amongst secondary cultures (Barnet). The man to send rain clouds, by Leslie Marmon Silko “The man to send rain clouds” was originally published in the late ...
