The Logical Fallacies of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy
Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy includes a proof for the existence of material objects, such as trees. Descartes accomplishes this by first doubting all things, from which he learns that he can be certain of nothing but his own existence as a thinking thing. From this established certainty, Descartes is able to provide proof for the existence of God, and, finally proof of the existence of material objects. Descartes’ proof of God, however, from which the proof of material things is made possible, is suspect: the proof relies on knowledge of clear and distinct ideas but knowledge of clear and distinct ideas relies on the existence of God. Furthermore, even if Descartes could manage to escape this circular method of proof, Descartes’ proof of his own existence is problematic.
Descartes begins his series of proofs by assailing the foundations of everything he once believed to be true. He reasons that all false principles will come crashing down as the foundations upon which they stand are brought to nothing. But, that he can at least be certain of those principles that remain. And if nothing remains, he can at least be certain that there is nothing of which he can be certain.
Descartes tells us that everything that he has "so far accepted as true [he] learned either from the senses or through the senses" (Biffle, 22). In light of this, Descartes proceeds to inquire into the reliability of the senses, the foundations upon which all his beliefs have so far rested. Descartes recalls the fact that the senses deceive him every night in his dreams. Specifically, he recalls the many times that he has believed himself to be awake, when he w...
... middle of paper ...
...mselves. It is this lack of an external check that makes it very difficult to construct a proof wrought from pure reason that is neither circular nor falsely assuming. In science, checks our found in phenomenon. If a theory is logically sound but does not work in the physical world, it is ruled out. Maybe we will find a similar check for ideas, or maybe we will devise a way around this problem of checking ideas. Either way, the problem is present, and it seems that ideas are not a likely place to find truth.
Works Cited
Biffle, Christopher, et al A Guided Tour of Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy Mayfield Publishing Company 2000
Cahn, Steven, ed., Classics of Western Philosophy, 5th. edition, Cambridge, Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.
Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. Cress. Indianapolis, U.S.A: Hackett, 1993.
To help Year Twelve students that are studying poetry appreciate it's value, this pamphlet's aim is to discuss a classic poem and a modern song lyric to show that even poetry written many years ago can still be relevant to people and lyrics today. By reading this may you gain a greater knowledge and understanding of poetry in general, and not just the two discussed further on.
Alexander Pope was born May 21, 1688, in London. His father was a cloth merchant living in London, both his parents were Catholic. It was a period of intense anti-Catholic sentiment in England, and at some point Alexander's family was forced to relocate to be in compliance with a statute forbidding Catholics from living within ten miles of London or Westminster. They moved to Binfield Berkshire where Pope's early education was affected by his Catholicism. The Catholic schools were illegal but, they were allowed to survive in some places. Prior to his move to Binfield Pope spent a year at Twofold, where he wrote "a satire on some faults of his master," which led to him being whipped and beaten until he became ill. Then once again he was taken from his family.
According to Descartes, “because our senses sometimes deceive us, I wanted to suppose that nothing was exactly as they led us to imagine (Descartes 18).” In order to extinguish his uncertainty and find incontrovertible truth, he chooses to “raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations (Descartes 59).” This foundation, which Descartes is certain to be the absolute truth, is “I think, therefore I am (Descartes 18).” Descartes argues that truth and proof of reality lies in the human mind, rather than the senses. In other words, he claims that the existence of material objects are not based on the senses because of human imperfection. In fact, he argues that humans, similarly to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, are incapable of sensing the true essence or existence of material objects. However, what makes an object real is human thought and the idea of that object, thus paving the way for Descartes’ proof of God’s existence. Because the senses are easily deceived and because Descartes understands that the senses can be deceived, Descartes is aware of his own imperfection. He
In this paper, I will explain how Descartes uses the existence of himself to prove the existence of God. The “idea of God is in my mind” is based on “I think, therefore I am”, so there is a question arises: “do I derive my existence? Why, from myself, or from my parents, or from whatever other things there are that are less perfect than God. For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect as God, can be thought or imagined.” (Descartes 32, 48) Descartes investigates his reasons to show that he, his parents and other causes cannot cause the existence of himself.
Rene Descartes meditations on the existence of God are very profound, thought-provoking, and engaging. From the meditations focused specifically on the existence of God, Descartes uses the argument that based on his clear and distinct perception that cannot be treated with doubt, God does exist. In the beginning of the third meditation, Descartes proclaims that he is certain he is a thinking thing based on his clear and distinct perception, and he couldn’t be certain unless all clear and distinct perceptions are true. Before diving into the existence of God, Descartes introduces smaller arguments to prove the existence of God. For example, Descartes introduces in his argument that there are ideas in which he possess that exists outside of him. Utilizing the objective versus formal reality, Descartes states “If the objective reality of any of my ideas turns out to be so great that I am sure the same reality does not reside in me, either formally or eminently, and hence that I myself cannot be its cause, it will necessarily follow that I am not alone in the world, but that some other thing which is the cause of this idea exists” (29). In other words, the ideas of objective reality that resides in Descartes can potentially only come from a supreme being, which is God; God possess more objective reality than he does formal reality. We as humans, as Descartes states, are finite substance, and God is the only infinite substance. The only way for us as a finite substance to think of an infinite substance is possible if, and only if, there is an infinite substance that grants us the idea of substance in first place. After these smaller arguments, Descartes states that while we can doubt the existence of many things, due to the fact that ...
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 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 other words, God possesses all of the perfections that Descartes cannot have but those perfections that are in his thoughts, concluding that God has no defects whatsoever according to the natural
I do not know how without being culpably particular I can give my Reader a more exact notion of the style in which I wished these poems to be written, than by informing him that I have at all times endeavored to look steadily at my subject; consequently, I hope that there is in these Poems little falsehood of description, and my ideas are expressed in language fitted to their respective importance. Something I must have gained by this practice, as it is friendly to one property of all good poetry, namely, good sense; but it has necessarily cut me off from a large portion of phrases and figures of speech which from father to son have long been regarded as the common inheritance of Poets.
The teaching of Descartes has influenced many minds since his writings. Descartes' belief that clear and distinct perceptions come from the intellect and not the senses was critical to his ultimate goal in Meditations on First Philosophy, for now he has successfully created a foundation of true and certain facts on which to base a sold, scientific belief structure. He has proven himself to exist in some form, to think and therefore feel, and explains how he knows objects or concepts to be real.
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.
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’ attempts to extricate himself from his sceptical doubts of the meditations had a varying degree of success, his doubt of his own existence was well surmounted with the indubitable ‘cogito’ argument. The second of his doubts, that of the existence of God was not extricated as successfully with the unconvincing trademark argument and the out of date ontological argument. Descartes then went on to tackling his doubt regarding the existence of the external world, which was done well but was based on the shady proofs for the existence of God. Descartes may not have proven the existence of God or the existence of the external world however he did produce a new style of philosophy in which he attempted to base all of his epistemological knowledge (or beliefs) on a single indubitable premise, this style of philosophy now known as foundationalism has been and is still used by philosophers today at great credit to Descartes, Rene Descartes proved himself within this book to be the father of modern philosophy.
Social work practice has become a vital part of our society. They are found in almost every aspect of our community as well as our schools. Social workers are problem solvers that help people deal with daily issues that may become problems that affect them. As our society becomes more challenging, social workers help bridge the gaps for people who face extraordinary challenges in their lives. The social worker’s scope of practice may contain helping at risk or overwhelmed individuals find resources, develop new coping strategies, resolve problems and conflicts, and secure opportunities to improve their quality of life. (Flynn, 2013) Although the scope of practice is basically the same, there are various types of social workers with various levels of education. It doesn’t matter if you are a medical, clinical, school, military, psychiatric or community social worker, the goal is
A prominent humanist, critic, and poet of the 18th century, Matthew Arnold was a despiser of philistinism; he was a lover and sustainer of art, intellect, spirituality, and certainly the combination thereof in poetry. Matthew Arnold began his essay, “The Study of Poetry,” writing that “The future of poetry is immense,” and that “more and more of mankind” would discover poetry as a consoler, a sustainer of humanity, and an interpreter of life. He called his audience to “conceive of it as capable of higher uses, and called to higher destinies.” Arnold, believing poetry to be of such high value, was also very dedicated to upholding a high standard in the world of poetry. His dedication is shown clearly through his writings as a critic, but Arnold was also a poet himself. His collection is not very well known, and not very vast in number or range. However, in much of the poetry that Matthew Arnold did write, he perpetuated his views regarding the ‘high destinies’ of poetry through his use of sound
Sidney addresses the poetic contributions and principles demonstrated by Aristotle, Plato, and other European scholars. Plato’s Republic implements most of the poetic knowledge Sidney reinforces in his defense. The abundance of sciences portrays significant purposes in life; Sidney concedes poetry as a superior subject. Sidney conveys several rational ideologies to sustain the defense of poetic theory. Poetics is subjected through the emphasis of imitation, generates purposes of learning, objects history and philosophy, and educates observers on knowledge, virtue and practical conceptions of poetry.
Preminger, Alex and T.V. Brogan eds. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: PUP, 1993.