Rene Descartes builds his epistemic views in his meditations. In Meditation 1, he set out to rid himself of the false knowledge which was the foundation for which he built his life. If there was any doubt to these foundational beliefs, he threw the idea out. Descartes broke down his beliefs in Mediation 2 and found that he is a thinking thing and because he thinks, he exists. That is, he knew he is at least a mind. By Meditation 3, Descartes built upon the foundations of the two previous meditations and defined substances. First, there are modes which are the property of objects like green, smoothness, cherry-flavored. Then he said there are finite substances which are things like cups, trees, and bodies. He also recognized that his mind was a finite substance. God, however, is an infinite substances. Then Descartes went on to describe formal and objective reality. Formal reality is the reality an object has. Through this reasoning, modes depend on finite substances and finite substances depend on infinite substances. Objective reality is the reality the idea the object has. Through this reasoning, the idea of modes depends on the idea of finite substances and the idea of finite substances depends on the idea of infinite substances. By following that logic Descartes came to know that ideas about material things could originate from him, but the idea of God, perfect and infinite, could not originate from him because he is imperfect and finite. Additionally, Descartes reasoned that the idea of God (the highest objective reality) could only have come from God therefore God exists. In Meditation 4 Descartes determined that there was no evil demon deceiving him because that being would be imperfect. God, on the other...
... middle of paper ...
...saying that all things exist in God’s mind, then God’s mind allows for evil to happen in this world. Berkeley said that if God is responsible for evil in Berkeley’s Idealist view, then God is also responsible for evil from a Dualistic view. He makes a claim that the argument for God being responsible for evil is tu quoque, that is, if it is a problem for me, then it is also a problem for you. Berkeley’s argument is a red herring and does not refute the original worry that God is responsible for evil. This tactic is a misdirection from the original worry that God is responsible for evil and does not explain anything at all. It arguably makes Berkeley’s argument weaker through its non-explanation.
In conclusion, I have explained Descartes’ and Berkeley’s views on what we can epistemically know, the metaphysical nature of reality, God, and how they are connected.
9- Bennett, Jonathan. "Berkeley and God." Cambridge University Press: Royal Institute of Philosophy: Philosophy 40.153 (1965): 207-21. Print.
Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.
The next stage in the system, as outlined in the Meditations, seeks to establish that God exists. In his writings, Descartes made use of three principal arguments. The first (at least in the order of presentation in the Meditations) is a causal argument. While its fullest statement is in Meditation III, it is also found in the Discourse (Part IV) and in the Principles (Part I §§ 17–18). The argument begins by examining the thoughts contained in the mind, distinguishing between the formal reality of an idea and its objective reality. The formal reality of any thing is just its actual existence and the degree of its perfection; the formal reality of an idea is thus its actual existence and degree of perfection as a mode of mind. The objective reality of an idea is the degree of perfection it has, considered now with respect to its content. (This conception extends naturally to the formal and objective reality of a painting, a description or any other representation.) In this connection, Descartes recognized three fundamental degrees of perfection connected with the capacity a thing has for independent existence, a hierarchy implicit in the argument of Meditation III and made explicit in the Third Replies (in response to Hobbes). The highest degree is that of an infinite substance (God), which depends on nothing; the next degree is that of a finite substance (an individual body or mind), which depends on God alone; the lowest is that of a mode (a property of a substance), which depends on the substance for its existence.
Moving up the tower of certainty, he focuses on those ideas that can be supported by his original foundation. In such a way, Descartes’s goal is to establish all human knowledge on firm foundations. Thus, Descartes gains this knowledge from the natural light by using it to reference his main claims, specifically the existence of God in Meditation III, and provide an explanation to his radical thoughts. In Meditation III “The existence of God,” Descartes builds his foundation of certainty in the natural light through the examination of God’s existence.
In efforts to find truth, Descartes used only his logic to identify his existence. He also proved that there is some type of knowledge that we are born with. “Some of our ideas seem to be “born with me,” some “invented” by me, whereas others “come from without” (Descartes, 2008, p. 211). Which means Descartes believed that we enter this world with some innate ideas that overtime helps us to develop understanding of our sense (invented by me) and through our experiences (comes from without). Descartes was a dualist; he stated that there existed something outside of our bodies. Descartes suggested that at the “ghost in the machine” theory developed by Gilbert Ryle, which states that there is some mystical being, which we understand is the mind, that is primary to the machine (or the body). Which leads me to believe, innate ideas are active within our minds.
Descartes main objective in his meditations is to question or doubt knowledge and for him, in order to get an unbiased knowledge; he basically started from zero and questioned everything. He uses radical form of skepticism in his investigation for the absolute truth. I think that Descartes wrote the meditations to reaffirm his beliefs and/or to justify his beliefs. Most of the ideas that he tried to prove where based on the existence of god. Rene Descartes was a devout catholic and being one of the key figures in the scientific revolution, I think he had conflicting thoughts about what he believes and tried to prove his beliefs with the Meditations.
Rene Descartes’ third meditation from his book Meditations on First Philosophy, examines Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. The purpose of this essay will be to explore Descartes’ reasoning and proofs of God’s existence. In the third meditation, Descartes states two arguments attempting to prove God’s existence, the Trademark argument and the traditional Cosmological argument. Although his arguments are strong and relatively truthful, they do no prove the existence of God.
Descartes’ “evil genius scenario” provides the possibility for the existence of an evil genius that is in control of our world in place on an omnipotent god. By in control, I mean that he would in some magical way compose our lives by his own will, thus making any certain knowledge about material objects impossible. This scenario presents some real questions with Descartes’ argument because it basically completely rules out the possibility of any god.
Descartes thinks that we have a very clear and distinct idea of God. He thinks God must exist and Descartes himself must exist. It is a very different way of thinking shown from the six meditations. Descartes uses ideas, experiments, and “proofs” to try and prove God’s existence.
How do we know what we know? Ideas reside in the minds of intelligent beings, but a clear perception of where these ideas come from is often the point of debate. It is with this in mind that René Descartes set forth on the daunting task to determine where clear and distinct ideas come from. A particular passage written in Meditations on First Philosophy known as the wax passage shall be examined. Descartes' thought process shall be followed, and the central point of his argument discussed.
Although their methods and reasoning contrasted one another, both philosophers methodically argued to come to a solid, irrefutable proof of God, which was a subject of great uncertainty and skepticism. Through Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous and Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes and Berkeley paved the way towards an age of confidence and faith in the truth of God’s perfect existence actively influencing the lives of
In the Third Meditation, Descartes forms a proof for the existence of God. He begins by laying down a foundation for what he claims to know and then offers an explanation for why he previously accepted various ideas but is no longer certain of them. Before he arrives at the concept of God, Descartes categorizes ideas and the possible sources that they originate from. He then distinguishes between the varying degrees of reality that an idea can possess, as well as the cause of an idea. Descartes proceeds to investigate the idea of an infinite being, or God, and how he came to acquire such an idea with more objective reality than he himself has. By ruling out the possibility of this idea being invented or adventitious, Descartes concludes that the idea must be innate. Therefore, God necessarily exists and is responsible for his perception of a thing beyond a finite being.
Do we need a watchmaker god or the Christian God, and how is it related to living a good life? The subject of god has always fascinated me, and I love to read about what position others place god in their lives. It is also interesting to see how people have different interpretations of who or what god is. I disagree with a lot of what Descartes says, I believe that modern science is very good, but the Christian God needs to be in the first position because science cannot resolve all life’s issues. We need to have a goal and an end, which is eternal happiness with God and assisting others on our way.
Rene Descartes decision to shatter the molds of traditional thinking is still talked about today. He is regarded as an influential abstract thinker; and some of his main ideas are still talked about by philosophers all over the world. While he wrote the "Meditations", he secluded himself from the outside world for a length of time, basically tore up his conventional thinking; and tried to come to some conclusion as to what was actually true and existing. In order to show that the sciences rest on firm foundations and that these foundations lay in the mind and not the senses, Descartes must begin by bringing into doubt all the beliefs that come to him by the senses. This is done in the first of six different steps that he named "Meditations" because of the state of mind he was in while he was contemplating all these different ideas. His six meditations are "One:Concerning those things that can be called into doubt", "Two:Concerning the Nature of the Human mind: that it is better known than the Body", "Three: Concerning God, that he exists", "Four: Concerning the True and the False", "Five: Concerning the Essence of Material things, and again concerning God, that he exists" and finally "Six: Concerning the Existence of Material things, and the real distinction between Mind and Body". Although all of these meditations are relevant and necessary to understand the complete work as a whole, the focus of this paper will be the first meditation.
...ll true knowledge is solely knowledge of the self, its existence, and relation to reality. René Descartes' approach to the theory of knowledge plays a prominent role in shaping the agenda of early modern philosophy. It continues to affect (some would say "infect") the way problems in epistemology are conceived today. Students of philosophy (in his own day, and in the history since) have found the distinctive features of his epistemology to be at once attractive and troubling; features such as the emphasis on method, the role of epistemic foundations, the conception of the doubtful as contrasting with the warranted, the skeptical arguments of the First Meditation, and the cogito ergo sum--to mention just a few that we shall consider. Depending on context, Descartes thinks that different standards of warrant are appropriate. The context for which he is most famous, and on which the present treatment will focus, is that of investigating First Philosophy. The first-ness of First Philosophy is (as Descartes conceives it) one of epistemic priority, referring to the matters one must "first" confront if one is to succeed in acquiring systematic and expansive knowledge.