Descartes Meditation V

1286 Words3 Pages

In Meditation V, Descartes presents what is now considered the Ontological argument for the existence of God. Descartes claims that as the idea of a “supremely perfect being [God], is one which I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number”, the essence of this idea itself is evidence of God, as for something to be perfect it must exist. Of course, this argument is open to many attacks from those such as Aquinas, Kant, Leibniz, Gaunilo and Hume. Furthermore, Descartes undermines himself with his previous meditations, for instance, in Meditation II, he claims we must question “what is reasonable”, as we do not already know. If we cannot appreciate the definition of reasonable, how are we to understand or even fathom what …show more content…

Aquinas argues that “Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought”, thus Descartes’ argument is only plausible for those who view God in the same light that he does. Nevertheless, this criticism is easy to solve. If we replace the word “God” with “a being than which none greater can be conceived”, then we instead establish that a being of which none greater can be conceived exists, and we naturally assume that this being is God. Nonetheless, Aquinas continues with a second flaw in Descartes argument, the lack of establishment between physical and mental existence. In light of Aquinas’ criticism, it becomes apparent that Descartes’ argument does nothing to show the physical existence of God. In Axiom X ,Descartes claims “Existence is contained in the idea or concept of every single thing, since we cannot conceive of anything except as existing”. However, this does not prove that God exists, for example, if I imagine a unicorn, this proves the mental existence of unicorns, however it does no such thing for the physical existence. Therefore, Descartes premise may be true, but it fails to be specific enough to make a convincing …show more content…

Kant claims that “existence does not function as a predicate” which diminishes Descartes point that to be perfect, something must exist. To prove this, Kant argues that there is no difference between the “concept of 100 real thalers” and “100 possible thalers”. This is to say that, whether or not the thing does exist, we perceive it as existing, therefore existence does not add to the value or ‘perfection’ of a concept. In response to Kant, in the Second Replies, Descartes shifts from an argument of existence to necessary existence. Nonetheless, Kant once again illustrates the flaw in Descartes argument which lies in Axiom X; in this argument, Descartes claims “perfect existence is contained in the concept of a supremely perfect being”. Kant undermines this claim using the analogy of a triangle, whereby he states that, “if we reject subject and predicate alike, there is no contradiction”; therefore, Kant is claiming that when we define a triangle as an object with three angles, what we are actually saying is only given that triangles exist, it will have three angles. Kant is thus proving that Descartes argument is merely a tautology, saying: if God exists, then he exists; whilst this argument is valid, it is also completely redundant in proving God’s existence. Along with Kant, Leibniz, faults Descartes tautology claiming that it is “ingenious but that

Open Document