In this essay I will outline why Descartes has come to the conclusion that we cannot be perfectly certain of any knowledge without firstly realising God must exist and I will reject this notion on the grounds that God’s existing will not affect the certainty of things which we cannot doubt.
Firstly I shall address why Descartes supposes we must have knowledge of God before we can know anything with perfect certainty. Descartes believes that he, unlike an atheist, can have absolute certainty of the things he perceives clearly and distinctly in his mind since the existence of God, the most perfect being, strengthens his conviction that he need not doubt this type of knowledge. Although without knowledge of God we can believe things to be certain, according to Descartes, a lingering doubt remains as to whether nature could have made us in such a way that we are mistaken in our greatest assurances, and consequently we can never know anything perfectly. Essentially, without God, we can doubt any knowledge we possess as there always remains the possibility that the faculties of the mind we have inherited are fundamentally unreliable. In his Fifth Meditation Descartes states: ‘once I perceived that God exists and have also understood…that he is not a deceiver, I concluded that all those things that I clearly and distinctly perceive are necessarily true’ (René Descartes, Fifth Meditation from Desmond M. Clarke, ‘Meditations and Other Metaphysical Writings’, pg 56).
The Report on Arundhati Roy’s New Perspective in ‘the God of Small Things’
Arundhati Roy’s New Perspective in ‘The God of Small Things’ By A.Usha Indian English Literature has a relatively recent history, it is only one and a half centuries old. Indian writing in English has undoubtedly acquired its own independent identity. It no more remains mere imitative and derivative. Its long journey from colonial to post-colonial, from imperial to democratic and from English to ...
It seems here that due to God’s nature as the perfect and benevolent creator, He would not have given us the capability of understanding simply so that we would be mistaken in even the most convincing of our beliefs. It’s this notion that gives Descartes a higher level of certainty in his form of knowledge and allows him to be able to know something perfectly.
Whilst this argument may seem cogent; that any knowledge of God would surely reinforce prior true knowledge, Descartes fails to consider whether he can doubt his apparently intuitive perception of God’s nature. He seems to suggest he knows with absolute certainty that God is inclined in such a way that he wouldn’t deceive us, but by his own measure of what is true knowledge, how can he be so certain of this fact that he cannot believe it wouldn’t be true? It seems entirely plausible that the author of our origin wouldn’t be the most perfect thing, after all, perfection is such an abstract human concept which we constantly strive for. There doesn’t seem to be anything in our universe which is perfect, if anything is described as such it will be done so within established limitations, whereas when one thinks of perfection as a separate concept we don’t think it involves limitations. So if nothing in our world is perfect, why is it necessary that the creator of this world is perfect? If anything the contrary, that God isn’t perfect, seems to be more fitting. This would mean that upon gaining knowledge of God we still cannot be completely certain of His nature and thus cannot arrive at the point where we cannot doubt his willingness to deceive us.
Although Descartes suggests otherwise, the most perfect thing doesn’t necessarily exist, existence isn’t a form of perfection as one can always imagine a more perfect thing. Hence even if God’s existence is necessary, He isn’t necessarily the most perfect thing, therefore his nature isn’t necessarily such that He is a perfect, benevolent creator that wouldn’t deceive us. Even if the proofs for God and the concept of God’s nature are explained to someone to the extent that it is clearly and distinctly in their mind’s eye, they are not simply convinced that God’s nature must be so. Since there is no intuitive reasoning that reveals God’s true nature, they must concede that they could be mistaken over exactly what His nature might entail and so, like the atheist, there remains a lingering doubt as to whether they are misguided. However convinced they may be of God’s essence being one thing or another, it doesn’t seem undoubtable that God’s nature should be fixed as the perfect, benevolent creator. Descartes can be no more certain that God wouldn’t be a deceiver than he can be of the ways in which as he states: ‘I can convince myself that I was so created by nature that I am sometimes mistaken about things that I think I perceive as clearly as possible’ (ibid, Clarke, Fifth Meditation, pg 56).
The Essay on Attempt To Perfect Nature Aylmer Georgiana Birthmark
Earthly Imperfections Too often in this world does man attempt to perfect nature. Tampering with this sort of element most commonly leads to a disaster to come extent. Because man is never satisfied, he is constantly vying for perfection, regardless of the outcome. Such is the case in Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story, "The Birthmark." Aylmer's persistent attempt to perfect nature is the cause of ...
In response Descartes might suggest that he intuits his knowledge of God through his perception of the various proofs for the existence of God. Through these proofs he sees the reasoning behind God’s nature as a non-deceiver. This argument he has clearly and distinctly in his mind and thus it is true for him and after careful inspection he cannot believe it is not the case. The problem here is that unlike the geometrical properties of a triangle, he cannot demonstrate with valid reasoning the existence of God or His nature. Although one could be so convinced of something, such as their beliefs about God, that they believe they cannot doubt it, the truth of the matter is not dependent upon their conviction and since ultimately we can doubt our very being, any absolute truth may still be unknown to us. Descartes might further reply by arguing that if knowledge of God does not provide an adequate basis for perfect knowledge then what does? However it seems that in actual fact nothing can be known perfectly, we must accept that perfect knowledge simply doesn’t exist. What appears most certain to us is exactly that, certain only to us, it is subjective. If there is an absolute truth it unfortunately exists beyond our grasp, something capable of perfect knowledge might exist but it seems impossible for humanity to reach that juncture.
The Essay on Existence Of God Exists Perfect Descartes
Existence of God The dilemma of the existence of God has troubled mankind for thousands of years. Many philosophers have put forth their theories in order to prove the existence of God. Most of these arguments can be termed as ontological. These arguments differ from other arguments for the existence of God since they are not based on empirical data such as the existence or nature of the universe, ...
To conclude, even if we cannot ever know something ‘perfectly’, the knowledge of which we are most assured and believe we have the least reason to doubt is not known with any more certainty once we have knowledge of God. Whether we are doubting the essential qualities of God or the way in which nature has given us the capabilities of the mind, any knowledge will regress to a doubt as to whether we are, perhaps in a more metaphysical sense, fundamentally misguided. Knowledge of God does not belong to any unique category of knowledge which can be regarded with any more certainty than other knowledge and thus cannot provide a basis for perfect knowledge of anything else.
References
René Descartes, (Translation by Desmond M. Clarke) Meditations and Other Metaphysical Writings, 2003, Penguin, London.
