In the second meditation of Descartes, he continues his topic about doubt and certainty. And he doubts that nothing is certain and wanted to use the Archimedes’s methods – “Demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth.” (Descartes, p394) - to make something certain. And the starting point is to find at least one thing that he can assure is “certain and unshakeable” (Descartes, p354).
He assumes nothing is certain and argued “So after considering about that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind” (Descartes, p354). It is the proposition for Descartes, so to be sure that “I” can doubt, “I” must exist. For him, even the body or the nature of body and “For, according to my judgement, the power of self-movement, like the power of sensation or of thought, was quite foreign to the nature of a body; indeed, it was a source of wonder to me that certain bodies were found to contain faculties of this kind” do not exist, but he is stills existing because these stuff are separable from “I”. Within his example of dreaming, he has already assumed that we do not have body, and this self-movement surely disappear without a body. So this kind of things is weak to prove the existence of “I”. However, “At least I have discovered it- thought; this alone is inseparable from me” (Descartes, p355). Then because “I” have thought, that is I can think, Descartes claimed “I” am a thinking thing. That
…show more content…
I have no senses. Body, shape, extension, movement and place are chimeras” (Descartes, p394). So the argument can change a little bit with the first piece comes to him – he doubts.
P1: I doubt or I do not doubt.
P2: Whether I doubt or not, I think.
P3: I think therefore I exist.
C: I exist.
That is he points the relationship between doubt and think. However, the problem is still here – does think really exist? So the most important thing for Descartes to prove the existence in the base of his proposition – “I am, I exist” (Descartes, p.354) – is to set a premise to let think exist, however, it is kind of hard to prove and he truly does not have this premise for the existence of think. So I just argues that his argument is not perfect, that is invalid and not sound.
If Descartes firstly has the premise of the existence of think, maybe it would be more complete. We know, according to Descartes’s statement, the thought is inseparable from us, is a part of us. So when we think, and thinking do exist, we can prove the existence of ourselves. So the following argument maybe better for me:
P1: The thinking do exist.
P2: I think.
P3: I think therefore I exist.
C: I
...es me, “God should have endowed me with this idea, so that it would be like the mark of the craftsman impressed upon his work” (Descartes 34, 51). Descartes says “the whole force of the argument rest on the fact that I recognize that it would be impossible for me to exist, being of such a nature as I am (namely, having in me the idea of God), unless God did in fact exist.” (Descartes 35, 52) My nature and my existence themselves prove the existence of God, therefore, Descartes says “the mere fact of my existing and of there being in me an idea of a most perfect being, that is God, demonstrates most evidently that God too exists.” (Descartes 34, 51)
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.
Descartes major concern is what we can know to be actually real. This concern starts from a dream he has, in his dream he thinks he is actually awake, so when Descartes does wake up he begins to question reality. On page 75 and 76 he says “ But I had the persuasion that there was absolutely nothing in the world, that there was no sky and no earth, neither minds nor bodies; I was not, therefore, at the same time, persuaded that I did not exists? To solve this he tosses out all emotions and reasons to try to figure out what actually exists. He starts himself on this hyperbolic doubt, increasing levels of doubt, meaning he continues to doubt himself until what he is left with is Cogito Ergo Sum. . Cogito Ergo Sum is being aware of disembodied thinking. He uses this as proof of his existence, because having thought, whether wrong or right, is proof that one does exist.
Descartes assured his existence through the conviction of "Cogito, ergo sum" which translates into “I think therefore I am” (Popkin & Stroll 198). In order to question ones existence one must exist, non-existence cannot question itself. I know that my mind exists because I am here to question its existence. To concretize this idea, imagine a house and you are building a house on ground which you see. The house is built out of wood, metal, and earth on the ground. Does the house exist because of the materials used to build it or because your mind tells you that it exists? Well based on Descartes, there are no such things as wood or metal in reality because the only thing that is real is the mind itself and the built house is a figment of your mind to what you perceive as real better known as an illusion. Therefore all that we sense is an illusion and everything outside the mind is uncertain of existence. Furthermore this leads to the ...
Descartes begins his Second Mediation by stating that in the previous day during his “Project” he had been coming across much doubt “… ones that are too serious to be ignored.” But in results of this he ponders upon many questions like whether or not he himself his “something” and that if he is indeed thinking that he must be something. What is one person that can 't think? But a thing that can indeed think must be existing or else it would not be able to think. Even though he had previously convinced himself that nothing exists not even the Earth, the sky nor himself. But if he is having these thoughts of doubt he is saying that he must exist if he himself is able to think. He later states that there may be an almighty power above him and he may be the one deceiving him. But again he stumbles across the thought that he must exist in order to be deceived. So if there is someone above him that someone cannot deceive nothing. So if that almighty power is deceiving what Descartes believes is him then Descartes, Himself, does undoubtedly
At the start of the meditation, Descartes begins by rejecting all his beliefs, so that he would not be deceived by any misconceptions from reaching the truth. Descartes acknowledges himself as, “a thing that thinks: that is, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things” He is certain that that he thinks and exists because his knowledge and ideas are both ‘clear and distinct’. Descartes proposes a general rule, “that whatever one perceives very clearly and very distinctly is true” Descartes discovers, “that he can doubt what he clearly and distinctly perceives is true led to the realization that his first immediate priority should be to remove the doubt” because, “no organized body of knowledge is possible unless the doubt is removed” The best probable way to remove the doubt is prove that God exists, that he is not a deceiver and “will always guarantee that any clear and distinct ideas that enter our minds will be true.” Descartes must remove the threat of an invisible demon that inserts ideas and doubts into our minds to fool us , in order to rely on his ‘clear and distinct’ rule.
One of Rene Descartes’ major culminations in Meditations on First Philosophy is “I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind” (Descartes:17). This statement can be explicated by examining Descartes’ Cartesian method of doubt and his subsequent discovery of basic truths. Even though I do believe that Descartes concludes with a statement that is accurate: cogito ergo sum, there are areas of his proof that are susceptible to defamation. These objections discover serious error with Descartes’ method used in determining the aforementioned conclusion.
In Meditations on First Philosophy, it is the self-imposed task of Descartes to cast doubt upon all which he knows in order to build a solid foundation of knowledge out of irrefutable truths. Borrowing an idea from Archimedes, that with one firm and immovable point the earth could be moved, Descartes sought one immovable truth. Descartes' immovable truth, a truth on which he would lay down his foundation of knowledge and define all that which he knows, was the simple line "Cogito ergo sum": I think, therefore I am. This allowed for his existence.
Through Descartes’s Meditations, he sought to reconstruct his life and the beliefs he had. He wanted to end up with beliefs that were completely justified and conclusively proven. In order to obtain his goal, Descartes had to doubt all of his foundational beliefs so that he could start over. This left Descartes doubting the reality of the world around him and even his own existence. In order to build up to new conclusively proven and justified true beliefs, Descartes needed a fixed and undeniable starting point. This starting point was his cogito, “I think, therefore I am.” In this paper I will argue that Descartes’s argument that he is definite of his own existence, is unsound.
Descartes gives reasons to say his mind could exist without his body, however these reasons are not good enough for us to agree with him. Descartes’ two strongest reasons for this are the doubt argument and the divisibility argument.
It is in Meditation II that Descartes relates his certainty regarding his existence. He claims that he exists because he is able to think; “I think, therefore I am.” Even though he believes that all of his senses are subject to analysis, he knows for certain that he is thinking. This leads into the concept of separation between mind and body. Meditation II is Descartes assertion that both mind and body are separate from one another. Further on in Meditation VI, Descartes evaluates the existence of material objects, away from the existence of self and the existence of God. He acknowledges that he believes that material objects can exist since they are “objects of pure mathematics.” He acknowledges that God is capable of creating everything for which he is capable of perceiving. Additionally, Descartes acknowledges that the imagination produces evidence to support the perceived existence of external
Descartes affirms that he is certain that he is a thinking thing. His reasoning, however, seems to be a circular argument. Descartes knows he is a thinking thing because “in this first instance of knowledge, there is nothing but a certain clear and distinct perception of what I affirm” (Descartes, 24). He concludes, “everything I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true” (Descartes, 24). Descartes could only know that what he clearly and distinctly perceives is true if he can be certain he is a thinking thing. Throughout this proof, Descartes is trying to use God’s existence as a way of affirming that which he clearly and distinctly perceives. However, he is also trying to prove God’s existence by claiming that the idea of God is a clear and distinct perception. Without inquiring into the existence of God, “it appears I am never capable of being completely ...
Descartes’ first two Meditations are arguably the most widely known philosophical works. Because of this, one can make the error of assuming that Descartes’ method of doubt is self-evident and that its philosophical implications are relatively minor. However, to assume this would be a grave mistake. In this paper, I hope to spread light on exactly what Descartes’ method of doubt is, and how, though it furnishes challenges for the acceptance of the reality of the external world, it nonetheless does not lead to external world skepticism.
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.
In the second meditation he has found one true fact, "I think, therefore I am". Descartes then attempts to discover what this "I" is and how it perceives reality. The "I" is a body, a soul, and a thinking thing. It gains perception and recognition through the senses, the imagination, and the mind. He runs into two major problems in these meditations. The first was the existence of reality. The second is the connection between body and mind as he defines them.