In this essay I will be examining the logical impasse of not being able to attain certain knowledge without accepting the certainty of his sense of reason the meditator faces in meditations on first philosophy and discuss possible interpretations of the text that would explain the meditator’s use of circular argument. The meditator’s endeavor in Rene Descartes’ meditations on first philosophy is introduced through a biographical account, with which any reader can relate. Realizing how in the past he had “accepted many false claims as true” and “how everything [he] had later constructed on top of those falsehoods was doubtful”, he feels the need to “tear everything down completely and begin from the most basic foundations”. His objective is to establish a body of knowledge which is absolutely certain. To achieve this objective, the mediator takes two stages in meditations on first philosophy. The first is the demolition of what is uncertain and the second is the rebuilding of a new certain body of knowledge. The process of demolition is reduced to the single task by the principle that knowledge is doubtable if what the knowledge is contingent upon is uncertain. Following the belief contained in the Aristotelian dictum that ‘nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses’, proving the uncertainty of knowledge gained from the senses is all that is necessary to prove that all the knowledge the meditator has about the world is uncertain. Tentatively beginning with cases in which he believes that he is misguided, such as optical illusions, he next resorts to more drastic measures, which he calls ‘hyperbolic doubt’. He imagines scenarios that would result in him being sensorially deceived such as hypothesizing that he... ... middle of paper ... ...e a concept of God that clearly is of external influence. Although his proof only relies on his ability to conceive such a God, it is effective in illustrating the impossibility of an uncorrupted body of knowledge. It is, indeed, somewhat farfetched to assume Descartes’ intentions in the text, but given that expressing what would entail rejecting all established theological opinions, perhaps he, like many writers, decided to take a literary approach. For it seems that, while accomplishing the task of making readers realize uncertainty, the text convinced few who were not already faithful in the existence of God. And, seeing that the circular argument fallacy is quite obvious and unmistakable for anyone, it would be odd to think that Descartes’ himself was convinced by it, and more natural to think that he encountered the problem but continued out of some intention.
Descartes, René. "Meditation Three." Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. Donald A. Cress. Third Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1993. 24-35. Paperback.
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.
In The Heart of Understanding, Thich Nhat Hanh’s uses simple but powerful words and real world examples to illustrate the profound Buddhist philosophy from the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra, an important representative of Mahayana Buddhist literature. The Mahayana school of Buddhist teachings emphasizes the doctrine of Sunyata- emptiness. The doctrine of emptiness, one of the most important Mahayana innovations, focuses on the relational aspect of existence. Thich Nhat Hanh coins and introduces a new word- interbeing to explain the state of emptiness. This idea of interbeing not only illustrates emptiness well but also provides understanding of other fundamental Buddhist ideas such as No-Self, impermanence and non-duality.
In conclusion, Descartes made an argument to prove God’s existence and seemed to be able to prove that he existed, but after a taking a closer look and revaluating his theories you see that he uses a lot of circular reasoning. It is really tough to believe any of what Descartes is saying. After reading his meditations you are left confused, mostly because you are trying to decipher what he is saying and you end up going around and around because of the circular reasoning. Even without the circular reasoning the argument just doesn’t make any sense, especially in today’s world, without any data. To be able to fathom a sound argument for the existence of God just sounds too preposterous to believe. To believe that God exists based of faith and religion is what people today and in Descartes time, as well, believed. To say that God exists because there must have been some superior creator that put this idea in my head is very far fetched. People don’t need to be told that God exists because most people already believe and most of them know that he does.
My thoughts on God are clear and distinct that he is existent. Descartes’ now has ‘rebuilt’ the world, solely because of his power and reasoning. Descartes’ is only able to use his power and reasoning because he knows God is a guarantor of his ideas and thoughts. As Descartes thinks about his own imperfections, it leads him to think about perfection, and how it has to come from something superior to him.... ...
...ircle may have had a solid foundation and belief. However, I just gave you, with supporting evidence, my view of why the Cartesian circle is wrong and why I believe that Descartes was trying to make the point that God must exist in order for him or us to even have the clear and distinct perception to dwell on the idea of God, an idea that only God himself created. I hope this solves the issue of the Cartesian circle and hopefully strengthens Descartes argument of how the circle is false and he was maybe just misunderstood. My claim will stand that the Cartesian circle was just a big misunderstanding, and Descartes, by no means, interacted with the belief and structure of this falsified circle.
He argues that if he does not solve God’s existence, he will not be certain about anything else. Thus, Descartes says that he has an idea of God and, therefore, God exists. However, in order to be certain of His existence, Descartes provides proofs that will illustrate his reasoning. The four proofs include formal reality vs. objective reality, something can’t arise from nothing, Descartes cannot be the cause of himself, and therefore, the bigger cause is God. Now that Descartes knows God is real, he must solve another aspect, which is if God can be a deceiver.
Descartes succeeded in some parts of his proof for the existence of God, but failed in proving God’s existence from a logical point of view. Most religions prove that anybody can be right in his own description of existence of God. So, Descartes is right in his own way, but to others to accept his idea is totally up to them. No one is certain that God exists. Although there are many causes that could make one believe God is for certain, those causes which might be perceived, does not necessarily make them true.
3. "Some Key Arguments From Meditation III-V." New York University. New York University , Web.
In the second meditation, Descartes is searching for an Archimedian point on which to seed a pearl of certainty. By doubting everything in his first meditation, Descartes consequently doubts his own existence. It is here that a certainty is unearthed: “If I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed”(17). However, Descartes “does not deduce existence from thought by means of syllogism, but recognizes it as something self-evident by a simple intuition of the mind,” or in other words, by natural light (Second Replies:68).
Firstly, Descartes talks about “proofs” of the existence of God, explained in his third and fifth meditation. Meaning, his proofs are shown by experiment to prove that God exists. He reinterprets Archimedes ' saying, “required only one fixed and immovable point to move the whole earth from its place, I can hope for great things if I can even find one small thing that is certain and unshakeable (Descartes 159).” That he could shift the entire earth
Throughout “Mediations I and II”, Descartes disputes definitions of reality and identity, establishing a precursor to Emerson’s philosophy. Initially, Descartes questions all notions of being. In “Mediation I”, Descartes begins his argument explaining the senses which perceive reality can be deceptive and “it is wiser not to trust entirely to any thing by which we have once been deceived” (Descartes 59). But, he then continues to reason; “opinions [are] in some measure doubtful…and at the same time highly probable, so that there is much more reason to believe in than to deny them” (Descartes 62). Descartes maintains trust within his established personal beliefs though he may doubt certain physical senses. Additionally, Descartes seeks to establish his identity in “Meditation II”. Even as he questions his very existence, he begins trustin...
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.
Descartes writes, “I now seem to be able to lay it down as a general rule that whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true” (Med. 3, AT 7:35). The vulnerability of this statement is that truth relies on the meditator’s ability to perform clear and distinct perception correctly and without doubtfulness. Correct clear and distinct perception must now go toe to toe with Descartes’ evil
Descartes believes that we clearly and distinctly perceive in the present but God is necessary for the continued affirmation of that clear and distinct perception when we look back on that clear and distinct perception. But, I find that Descartes response is not sufficient to breaking the circle. In fact, the Cartesian Circle cannot be broken through Descartes or any response. (And the implication this has on his philosophical work; namely it does not matter that the circle