РефератыИностранный языкWhWhy Does Descartes Think He Can Be

Why Does Descartes Think He Can Be

Sure That A God Who Is No Deceiver Exists Essay, Research Paper


Why does Descartes think he can be


sure that a God who is no deceiver exists? Are his arguments convincing?Descartes


considers himself to be sure that there is a non-deceiving God by using two


different arguments in the Meditations: the so-called ?trademark?


argument, and the famous ontological argument. Although Descartes believes that


they are both capable of proving the existence of God indubitably, some


consideration of the arguments suggests that they are not convincing as he


considers them to be. The ?trademark?


argument appears early on in the work, in the third meditation. It is important


to remember the context in which the argument is used: Descartes has removed


from his acceptance anything that is doubtable, and is left with the cogito.


Any argument for a non-deceiving God will necessarily have to come from within


himself, as that is all he has left. The ?trademark? argument can be summed up


as two simple premises: firstly, that the idea of God exists within us, and


secondly, the complexity of the idea is such that only a perfect being ? God ?


could have planted it within us. One way in which


this argument can easily be disproved is if it can be shown that Descartes does


not possess an idea of God. To merely say, though, that just because Descartes


lacks a complete understanding of God?s infinite nature means he lacks an idea


of God would not, on its own, be able to disprove this. To understand the idea


of God does not require one to understand all that goes with the idea: our


finite nature naturally prevents us from doing this, as is discussed later. One


can have the idea of how radio works whilst still lacking an understanding of


the actual details of radio waves. What, though, is


unconvincing about this argument, even at this stage, is the idea of saying an


infinite being exists, but its infiniteness can never be fully understood by a


finite being, thus God exists and gave us all the idea of him. The use of words


appears to be too arbitrary ? ?infinite?, ?omnipotent?, and ?omniscient? all


appear in the text to define the concept of God by Descartes. These are,


though, just words. Although the meanings of these words are likely to be


understood, it is still the case that these abstract concepts can be applied by


anyone to anything, without the slightest worry about their correct use. One


can have the idea of an omnipotent and infinite being, and not believe it. The


atheist is just as unable to explain what this concept actually involves as the


theist. To admit to being able to understand the concept of God appears


unlikely: one can have a vague idea of His probable nature, but this will not


be the same as understanding. It has been suggested by some critics that by


merely negating our finitude we can have an understanding of infinity.


Descartes seems to take the opposite view, and asserts that our finiteness is a


negation of God?s infiniteness, because in order to recognise our own


finiteness, an understanding of infinity is required. This approach, though,


again seems to involve playing with words rather than actually solving the


problem. Even so, there


is still the question of how this idea of God was created. It seems right to


say that ideas have causes, although it would be futile to always maintain that


the cause of one idea was another idea, as ultimately there has to be a cause


of the idea. Only God, it is maintained, in a repetition of the classic ?first


cause? argument, could have originated this idea. It would be acceptable to


presume that the idea of God was taught by one generation to the next, although


this would disrupt the assertion that we all have an internal idea of God. Only Descartes?


assertion that no finite being could have produced an idea of an infinite being


fits this argument. Descartes uses the idea of ?degrees of reality? to explain


this. For a thing to create something else it needs at least as much reality as


the thing it is creating. Thus, a finite being, having a lesser degree of


reality than an infinite one, could not therefore have created it. The cause


must be at least as real as the effect. This interpretation seems to imply that


all the properties found in the causes are to be found in the effects, which


appears to be manifestly false. For example, simple atoms combine to make


complex molecules. To argue this, though, maybe to misunderstand what the terms


cause and effect mean, when used in this context. Descartes may be referring to


dependence. Modes depend


upon the substances they need. Likewise, the complex molecules mentioned above


depend upon the existence of simple atoms, thus the former are less real than


the latter. In this way, it can be argued that humanity, being finite, is


dependent on an infinite being, God, for its existence. It has been suggested,


though, that this would mean that God would depend upon an infinite being for


existence, which would be unacceptable to a monotheist like Descartes. This


view, though, is open to the (valid) criticism that intertwined with the idea


of God is his eternal nature: being infinite, he depends upon nothing save


himself. Or, in other words, he has the power to choose not to exist, but never


makes this move. Despite these


attempts at interpretation, though, the arguments still remain unconvincing.


The attempt to refer to ?degrees of reality? merely suggests how God might exist,


not whether He does or not. Moreover, to suggest that the idea of God is innate


and too difficult for people to invent themselves does not remove any doubt.


One can have ideas of complex, even fanciful things, but that does not suggest


that they are innate. Furthermore, when to say, ?I have an idea of God? is not


very meaningful. It merely suggests the use of a word. Admittedly, describing


an infinite substance may take some time, but one cannot admit to truly


understanding something unless it has been adequately defined to some ext

ent. Thus, the


?trademark? argument is discounted. What, then, of Descartes? second proof of


God, the ontological argument? This proof


follows an argument which can be traced back to St Anselm in the 11th


Century. Descartes? form of it is one of the simplest. Put in a rudimentary


way, it can be expressed as being a perfect being, and as existence forms part


of the essence of being perfect, God therefore exists. When Descartes uses the


term ?essence?, he is referring to properties of a thing which is necessarily


contained in the essence of the thing. The classic example of this is a


triangle: its essence is that its internal angles total 180?. The triangle,


though, does not contain existence as part of its essence: there may, in fact,


be no triangle existing in nature. Even so, its angles will still total 180?.


God, though, is considered by Descartes to be a special case. The concept of


God, being infinite, contains all possible perfections, thus existence cannot


be separated from this. A number of


objections can be raised to this idea. Descartes himself answers one such in


the text, namely that just as he can imagine a triangle without it in fact


existing, surely he can imagine an existing God without Him actually existing.


Descartes responds by repeating the statement that he cannot separate existence


from the essence of a supremely perfect being, thus he necessarily exists.


This, though, is reminiscent of Gaunilo?s reply to St Anselm?s version of the


argument, in which he suggests that one can just as easily imagine a perfect


island. It does not follow that this perfect island exists solely on the


grounds that one has an idea of it. It may be the


case that Descartes would reply that a perfect island is akin to the winged


horse he discusses, which is merely the combination of the idea of a horse and


the idea of wings. As was discussed earlier in the paragraphs relation to the


?trademark? argument, though, it might be argued that the idea of God is merely


an extension of our personal knowledge about ourselves. Descartes would refute


this, as described above, but it still remains a convincing counter-argument. The most common


attack on the ontological argument is the view that it considers existence to


be a predicate (a word/phrase which ?asserts something about a proposition?


[OED, 1995]). Kant was one of the first to use this criticism, and it has


frequently occurred ever since. Under this view, it is asserted that nothing is


actually learnt by saying that something exists. Moreover, by saying that


?white sheep exist?, existence is not being attributed to our concept of white


sheep in the way ?white sheep are fluffy? does. Admittedly, it might be said


that white sheep do not solely reside in the imagination, thus they can be said


to exist, but this is to misunderstand the argument. The concept of white sheep


remains the same, whether or not they actually exist. Likewise, the concept of


God, part of which is his existence, is not actually reduced by asserting that


He does not exist. That a supremely perfect being would have as his essence


existence, yet there is no supremely perfect being is not contradictory. It


would only be contradictory to assign two predicates to an object that conflict


with each other: to say that a triangle has four sides, for instance, would be


an example of this. Likewise, Moore pointed out that to say ?All tame tigers


exist? can be negated in a way which ?Some tame tigers exist? cannot. This also


seems to suggest that the verb ?to exist? does operate in a different manner to


normal predicates. Of course, it could be argued that ?some tame tigers exist


in fiction? allows a negation of the original, but this involves using a


different interpretation of the verb than the one currently used. When the verb is


used in this context, it is certain that existence in reality is meant, not


existence in the understanding, or in fiction, etc. Thus despite Descartes?


claims to have a clear and distinct idea of God, in which his essence entails


his existence, the ontological argument can be said to be less than convincing.


Descartes? clear and distinct idea of God is just that: clear and distinct in


his understanding. Although this has been already touched on above, it is worth


repeating: it can be effectively argued that Descartes? understanding of God


does not mean He actually exists. There may not be any winged horses, but the


concept can be grasped, likewise there may not be a God, but the concept can be


grasped. The ontological argument consistently appears to be defining Him into


existence, even though its adherents, Descartes among them, claim that this not


the case. Kenny, on the


other hand, has suggested that if a distinction is drawn between what is given,


and what actually exists. A discussion over the nature of a triangle is an


example of the former: it does not matter whether such a triangle exists or


not. No triangle may actually exist, but it still has angles totalling 180?. On


the other hand, to say that ?God is perfect? may be similar, but as existence


forms part of the definition of what God is, He must necessarily exist. It is


hard, though, to see how this version differs fundamentally from either the


ontological argument itself, or Descartes? version. Descartes


considers that both of these arguments prove the existence of a non-deceiving


God. The proof that God is a not malevolent is obvious to Descartes, who


considers that the perfect being would not deceive him. However, it may be the


case that the same arguments Descartes uses can be used to prove the existence


of the Devil or the malicious demon. This, though, is beyond the scope of this


essay. Either way, the


proofs Descartes uses are not convincing. One does not need to have God implant


an idea of Himself into one?s mind to have an idea of God. Likewise, the


ontological argument, however it is phrased, ultimately defines God into


existence, rather than proving it.


39f

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Why Does Descartes Think He Can Be

Слов:2227
Символов:14208
Размер:27.75 Кб.