The Intent of Bouwsma's Descartes' Evil Genius
Bouwsma's essay critiques Descartes' use of the evil demon in his Meditations on First Philosophy through the creation of two situations in which the "evil genius" attempts to use his powers for their express purpose, that of deception. Bouwsma conveniently admits the existence of "four or five clear and distinct ideas" and goes on to show that the evil genius is capable of deceiving mankind about everything else, specifically sensory perceptions. Bouwsma's main point in taking this approach is to express his view that Descartes' hypothesis that one might be deceived by an evil demon is incoherent. Bouwsma's second "adventure" is supposed to indicate that once there becomes no way for one to distinguish between reality and illusion, the illusion becomes reality. This suggests that Descartes' supposition that our senses are always mistaken is in itself a form of trickery, because what one can hold, see, touch, smell, and so forth is reality, no matter whether the progenitor of the "illusion" is the evil demon or God.
The two "adventures" gradually lead to Bouwsma's point by beginning with the degree of influence and power exerted by the evil demon. Bouwsma himself admits that his first adventure is a "transparent case of deception" in which the word illusion will be used in a "clear and familiar application" which is intended to demonstrate his version of how Descartes' evil demon may be expected to deceive. This first adventure shows an ordinary illusion, a thin illusion which consists of images that can fool someone but which can be distinguished from reality eventually. The fictional young man, Tom, is immediately struck by the fact that the bowl of flowers he i...
... middle of paper ...
...ived by Tom as being real in this dream world, and who acts as she would have before the demon destroyed everything but Tom, but who does not exist. A "real" person has their own senses and perception, their own thoughts, yet the evil demon destroyed everything except for Tom and replaced it with illusion. All that exists in the world is Tom, Tom's perceptions, and the evil demon. Although Tom's perceptions perceive everything as it was in the real world, it is clear that all of the perceptions are illusions. What is meant by flowers or by Milly is not just Tom's perceptions of these things, but rather the thing itself, which if possessing senses should be able to perceive the things around it, which Milly is unable to do as "she" does not exist, merely Tom's perception of her. Thus Bouwsma falls short of his goal of impeaching Descartes' use of the evil demon.
Review of Descartes: An Intellectual Biography and Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain
to make sense of our world, and that the ability to think mathematically was an
No one can prove or disprove the existence of an evil genius; they can only go so far as to say that it does not matter. He tried to prove that the existence of the evil genius would not make a difference in our lives. For this reason, I believe that although Bouwsma has made a valid point, but he only touched the surface of Descartes' argument. He has succeeded in proving that life is not meaningless, but that was not the purpose of Descartes' argument to begin with. All in all the two philosophers both have valid points to back there individual arguments but it is a matter of opinion on which one is right.
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 Meditations on First Philosophy: Meditation VI, René Descartes argues for the distinction between mind and body. He asserts: “And accordingly, it is certain that I am really distinct from my body, and can exist without it…” (p. 618) This argument takes place in the last of six meditations, in which Descartes attempts to prove the existence of the physical world and the distinction between mind and body (Descartes’ Dualism). In earlier Meditations, he doubts everything that is not self evidently true, including the material world. He uses doubt as method of discovering simple truths he can build upon. The first truth he establishes is “the cogito” which is Latin for I think, Descartes uses this self-evident truth to argue that the mind is better known than the body, and uses thought as a proof for it’s existence. After he establishes his archimedean point or “the cogito” he starts to build his ontology. However, before he even proves matter exists, Descartes explains the essence of matter.
Descartes believes “it is clear enough from this that he cannot be a deceiver, since it is manifest by the natural light that all fraud and deception depend on some defect” (89). In addition, to the third Meditation, Descartes further explains God’s existence as a non – deceiving entity of natural light in Meditation IV. Descartes stands with his position that God is perfection by saying “it is impossible that God should deceive me”. For in every case of trickery or deception some imperfection is found.
In the New Merriam Webster Dictionary, sophism is defined as a plausible but fallacious argument. In Rene Descartes Meditation V, he distinguishes the existence of God, believing he must prove that god exists before he can examine any corporeal objects outside of himself. By proving that the existence of God is not a sophism, he also argues that God is therefore the Supreme Being and the omnipotent one. His conclusion that God does exist enables him to prove the existence of material things, and the difference between the soul and the body.
Descartes claims that intellect as thinking being extended as to the Aristotelian claiming intellect as a thought. He claims that there must be a conception of what the thing that thinks underlies the Cogito inference in which registers these sufficient grounds. He establishes this argument by suggesting that it must exclude anything that requires the existence of anybody from the essential properties of the ‘they’ that thinks. Therefore claiming that mind is an extended thinking thing and the body being a non-extended thinking thing. He established these claims by first questioning everything he sees and doubting of everything that he sees is false and that his deceitful memory represents ever existed. Also excluding the senses and questioning
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.
In the first meditation, Descartes makes a conscious decision to search for “in each of them [his opinions] at least some reason for doubt”(12). Descartes rejects anything and everything that can be doubted and quests for something that is undeniably certain. The foundation of his doubt is that his opinions are largely established by his senses, yet “from time to time I [Descartes] have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once”(12). First, Descartes establishes that error is possible, employing the example of the straight stick that appears bent when partially submerged in water, as mentioned in the Sixth Replies (64-65). Secondly, he proves that at any given time he could be deceived, such is the case with realistic dreams. Further, Descartes is able to doubt absolutely everything since it cannot be ruled out that “some malicious demon … has employed all his energies in order to deceive me” (15). The malicious demon not only causes Descartes to doubt God, but also sends him “unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom or swim on the top”(16). Descartes has reached the point where he must begin to rebuild by searching for certainty.
In Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy he proposes several arguments regarding human perception. He begins this exploration by examining the principles that his beliefs are founded on. By doing this, Descartes is choosing not to question each of his beliefs individually; he is choosing to examine the foundation of his perceptions. Descartes proceeds to question where he has attained his knowledge. The answer, he decides, is from his senses. Descartes also determines that there have been instances where his senses have been deceptive. It is from this idea that Descartes forms his deductions for Meditations I, II, and VI, and begins to question the concept of dualism.
In Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous and Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, philosophers George Berkeley and René Descartes use reasoning to prove the existence of God in order to debunk the arguments skeptics or atheists pose. While Berkeley and Descartes utilize on several of the same elements to build their argument, the method in which they use to draw the conclusion of God’s existence are completely different. Descartes argues that because one has the idea of a perfect, infinite being, that being, which is God therefore exists. In Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, Berkeley opposes the methodology of Descartes and asserts that God’s existence is not dependent on thought, but on the senses and
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.
Rene Descartes’ natural light is his saving grace, and not Achilles’ heel. Descartes incorporates the concept of natural light within his epistemology in order to establish the possibility of knowing things completely without doubt. In fact whatever is revealed to the meditator via the natural light is considered to be indefeasible. The warrant for the truth of these ideas does not rely on experience or the senses. Rather the truth of the idea depends on viewing the concept through clear and distinct perception. Descartes’ “I am, I exist”, (Med. 2, AT 7:25) or the ‘cogito’ is meant to serve as the basis for knowing things through clear and distinct perception. Descartes’ cogito is the first item of knowledge, although one may doubt such things as the existence of the body, one cannot doubt their ability to think. This is demonstrated in that by attempting to doubt one’s ability to think, one is engaging in the action of thought, thus proving that thinking is immune to doubt. With this first item of knowledge Descartes can proceed with his discussion of the possibility of unshakeable knowledge. However, Descartes runs into some difficulty when natural light collides with the possibility of an evil genie bent on deceiving the meditator thus putting once thought concrete truths into doubt. Through an analysis of the concept of natural light I
Rene Descartes, a 17th century French philosopher believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. His Discourse on Method (1637) and Meditations (1641) contain his important philosophical theories. Intending to extend mathematical method to all areas of human knowledge, Descartes discarded the authoritarian systems of the scholastic philosophers and began with universal doubt. Only one thing cannot be doubted: doubt itself. Therefore, the doubter must exist. This is the kernel of his famous assertion Cogito, ergo sum (I am thinking, therefore I am existing). From this certainty Descartes expanded knowledge, step by step, to admit the existence of God (as the first cause) and the reality of the physical world, which he held to be mechanistic and entirely divorced from the mind; the only connection between the two is the intervention of God.