Upload
allison-caldwell
View
20
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Existence of Soul, Body, and God in Descartes, Allison Caldwell
In his book, Meditations on the First Philosophy, Renee Descartes
argues his main conclusions of existence, Dualist Interactionism and
his version of the Ontological Argument. Descartes believed that
humans are intrinsically souls and not bodies. Descartes claimed that
the nature of the mind is that of a thinking, non-extended substance,
whilst the nature of the body is of non-thinking, extended substance.
Dualist Interactionism refers to the belief that souls and bodies
causally interact with each other. An Ontological Argument is an
argument for the existence of an all-powerful and perfect God.
Descartes was a rationalist, meaning that he believed that knowledge
is only possible if based on absolute principles that are not derived
from sense experience.
In the Descartes’ First Meditation, What Can Be Called Into
Doubt, Descartes attempts to disregard all of his knowledge in order
to determine what truly exists in the world. He does this by
discarding any of the foundations of his ideas and knowledge which
can be doubted in the slightest. Descartes does this disregarding of
foundations of his knowledge in a reasoned and methodical way.
Descartes disregards these foundations so that he may free himself of
his preconceived opinions in order to take his continued ponderings
away from the senses.
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
An argument that Descartes offers as reason for his doubt is the
Dream Argument. Descartes’ Dream Argument states that the
perceptions that he experiences while he is asleep are much like
those which he experiences when he is awake. Because of this,
Descartes claims he can find no definite reasoning to believe that he
is awake or way in which he would be able to distinguish from being
awake and being asleep. From the Dream Argument, Descartes
concludes that he could be sleeping and all of the perceptions he
experiences are false.
Another skeptical doubt argument that Descartes explains is that
of the deceiving God. Descartes believed that there is a powerful,
perfect, and all knowing God that created human beings and could
very well be deceiving us of our knowledge and perceptions. Descartes
writes that even our mathematical knowledge could be controlled and
deceived by an all-powerful and all-knowing God. However, if God is
perfectly good then he would not deceive us. If someone does not
believe in God, then they must believe in a creator that is less than
perfect and therefore easier to believe both in its deception and in
the doubt of our beliefs.
The last skeptical doubt that Descartes offers to disregard his
foundations of knowledge is the Evil Genius Argument. Descartes turns
from the idea of God as the deceiver of our thoughts and knowledge
and instead considers the possibility of an evil genius as the source PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
of our deceptions, assuming that there is a being that is capable of
deceiving us in the same way in which God would be able to. From
this, Descartes concludes that it is a possibility that everything he is
experiencing could be the artificial creation of an evil genius who is
making him believe that his perceptions and experiences are real
when they are actually artificially input into his brain.
In Descartes’ Second Meditation, The Nature of the Human Mind
and How it is Better Known Than the Body, Descartes determines that
he exists. He reasons his way to this conclusion through examining
the act of thinking about being deceived and his existence. In order
for him to be thinking of the nature of existence, there must exist a
being to do the thinking. Descartes sums this thought process up with
the statement Cogito Ergo Sum, Latin for ‘I think therefore I am.’
Descartes states that even if there were a deceiver to make him
believe his perceptions were real, there must still exist a being for
the perceptions to belong to. So from the act of thinking, Descartes
reasons his way to ‘I think therefore I am’. Even if he were being
deceived about the content of his perceptions or experiences,
Descartes knows that since he is thinking and pondering, he cannot
be deceived in his own existence. From this Descartes concretes his
knowledge that he is an existing, thinking being.
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
Descartes considers that his knowledge of the objective content
in the world could be the result of a deceiver such as the evil
genius. It is not possible, though, that he could be deceived about his
own existence.
Descartes gives an example of a ball of wax to show that
matter persists through time. Descartes shows that even the material
things that we experience in the outside world are more reliant on
the mind than on the body for information regarding the outside
world. Descartes claims that a ball of wax is known more distinctly in
the mind. Descartes Wax Argument is as follows. As the ball of wax
melts and its shape and size change, our perception of the wax
changes too. However, as the wax melts it still remains the same
piece of wax as it was in the beginning and so we know in our mind
that fact although it would not seem that way if we were to base our
knowledge solely upon our senses or perceptions. Descartes concludes
from his ball of wax argument that all of our knowledge of material
things provide even more evidence for the existence of a self as a
thinking being. From this, Descartes concludes that our mind is more
distinct to our being than our body is and therefore the two are
separate things.
In his Third Meditation, Descartes gives his version of the
Ontological Argument and concludes that God is not a deceiver. From
his previous reasoning, Descartes has argued that he is certain of his PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
existence and continues to doubt his senses and perceptions since it
is possible that God is deceiving him. In Meditation three, Descartes
explores the idea of God as a deceiver more thoroughly. He begins
with examining his ideas and determines that there are three types:
innate, those that come from within, and those that come from
without. Descartes reasons that some of his ideas seem to come from
outside of himself against his wanting of the ideas, but he cannot
correspond them to the outside world. He reasons to this as it is
possible he has the capacity within himself to innately know such
things. Descartes’ argument for the existence of God comes from the
fact that he has an idea of God. Descartes reasons that since he is a
finite substance and God is an infinite substance as the idea of a God
is of a perfect being and this idea harnesses more objective reality
than the idea of himself, or a finite substance, that he could not have
created the idea of God on his own. Descartes concludes from this
argument that the idea of God must not have originated in himself
since God is infinite and he is finite.
In Descartes’ Fourth Meditation, he explores the possibility that
he may be in error in his Ontological Argument. Descartes has
reasoned that God is not a deceiver and He had created humans
along with their capacities- both of the intellect and of free will.
Descartes states that within the will is where error occurs and not
within the intellect, therefore he cannot blame God for providing us
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
with free will that we may use to be convinced of or fall into error.
Descartes concludes that in order for humans to avoid any such error
of the will, we must allow our intellect to judge the truth as we move
along in our lives.
In Meditation Five, Descartes explores the properties of material
things as well as argues another way of proving God’s existence by
exploring what properties we can know belong to God. Descartes
argues that when he thinks of material objects, he thinks of the
properties of these objects as extension, such as size, shape, length,
position, and movement. When he examines the properties of these
material things, he expresses that it is as if he is recalling something
that already existed within him innately and although they seem to
exist within him, he is not sure of the source of the ideas. Descartes
claims that whether he existed or not, it seems as if these ideas
would still exist. Descartes argues that these innate ideas do not come
to him through the senses as he can think of things that he has
never experienced before, such as a thousand sided figure.
Descartes reasons that since he has an innate idea of material
objects that God must exist due to God’s essence. Descartes argues
that it is because of the essence of God that necessary existence of
innate ideas are within him. From this, Descartes concludes that since
existence must belong to the essence of God as well, that God exists.
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
Descartes examines the possibility of conceiving a perfect being
without its existing and concludes that in order for the idea of a
perfect being to be within us innately, that the perfect being (God)
must exist. A perfection that is included in the definition of a perfect
being is that of existence, so God must exist by essence and by
definition. It is impossible to conceive in a perfect being without
attributing all perfections to it. Descartes argues that the necessity of
God’s existence is within us simply because of God’s existence and
creation of human beings.
Descartes argues further that all truths, even those of science,
rest upon the knowledge of God since what our intellect tells us is
true once we realize that what we see is not a deception by God or
other being since a perfect God would not allow us to be deceived by
himself or anything else.
In Meditation Six, Descartes examines the problem of the
existence of material objects. Descartes argues that his mind gives
him the idea of the existence of material objects and he knows that
they exist given the laws of science and mathematics. Descartes
reasons that in order for him to imagine things, such as a figure with
a thousand sides, he must put in effort to bring the object to his
mind and that he can exist as a being without the faculty of
imagination. Descartes argues that thought does not require effort,
however. Descartes argues that thought is distinct from imagination PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
since he can think of things without having to imagine them in his
mind in the present and imagining things requires he bring the idea
to his present mind. Descartes concludes here that thought is a
working in the mind of his mind’s own ideas while imagination is a
working of the mind as it pertains to senses and experiences due to
the body. Descartes’ conclusion is that imagination seems to require
the existence of a body outside of the mind.
From this conclusion, Descartes reasons that there is evidence
that material objects exist because of his senses. Descartes examines
his old beliefs and finds that they were due to his impressions based
on senses. He believes that these material objects exist due to
sensory input as they appeared without his necessitating of them and
because these objects are more vivid in his mind than those which he
imagines. Descartes reasons that all of his imagined ideas come from
previous experiences he had with his senses and are composed of
those memories. Descartes concludes here that nothing he can form in
his imagination would exist in his mind without first entering his mind
through his senses and a proof of this is that he can feel pain within
himself, but not through other material objects.
Descartes examines possible doubts that material objects exist,
such as sometimes when he sees things in the outside world that
they seem to be one way when in reality they are another such as
when a tower in the distance appears to be round when it is actually PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
square. Descartes also gives the example that an amputee may feel
pain in their limbs that no longer exist so pain in our bodies does
not prove that we exist. Descartes reasons that it is still possible that
he is dreaming and of the possibility that it may be an innate
capacity within him that forces him to be deceived about things he
thinks he sees clearly against his will.
Descartes argues the mind-body distinction from the existence of
material objects. Descartes argues that he knows that he exists as a
thinking thing and if he can understand one thing distinct from
another then it is necessary for that distinction to be true. Descartes
states that although he knows that he exists, he is not certain of the
existence of his body. Therefore, Descartes concludes, his mind exists
apart from his body and he is a thinking thing and nothing else. He
goes on to argue the mind-body distinction as it pertains to extension.
Descartes had previously concluded that he is a thinking thing that is
not extended while having the idea of body as an extended object.
So, Descartes concluded that mind is separate from body.
Descartes argues that material objects exist, based off of the
conclusion that mind is distinct from the body. He reasons that he
can understand the ideas from imagination and senses, but
imagination and senses cannot exist without a being which thinks.
Descartes further reasons that movement is a property of extended
things and he knows that he is capable of movement. Descartes PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
concludes that he is not only a thinking being, but he is also
extended. In order to be certain of this idea, Descartes pulls together
all of his previous conclusions to conclude that material objects exist
and he can be sure of it. His reasoning is as follows. Not only does
Descartes recognize that he has the power to examine the contents of
his mind, but also that he has the ability to originate ideas due to
sense input in his mind. Since his ability to originate ideas comes to
him without his necessitating the thoughts, he reasons that the
capability is in a substance other than himself and his mind and that
this substance must be just as real as the ideas of material objects
that his ideas and senses produce. So, from here Descartes reasons
that this substance must be God or another extended object. Since
God cannot be a deceiver, then God must have created him and
given him the inclination to believe that the ideas of material things
come from actual material things in the outside world. If the ideas do
not come from outside material things, then God would be a deceiver
and Descartes has already concluded He cannot be. Therefore,
Descartes concludes that material objects must exist, even if our
senses do not mirror the objects as they truly are outside of our
minds.
Descartes argues that our minds are within our bodies and
perceptions, such as pleasure and pain, arise from this conjoining of
mind with body. Descartes points out that mind is not divisible while
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
the body is. Mind is capable of knowing the truth, but our bodies are
not. The senses that God provided us exist for the wellbeing of our
body and our mind.
I do not believe that Descartes’ conclusions are necessarily
supported by his reasoning as his conclusions are built upon each
other and rest on the acceptance of his premises and assumptions.
I think Descartes is wrong when he decides God must exist
based on the fact that all things must have a cause outside of
themselves. If all things must have a cause, then what would be the
cause of God? An argument against this is that a perfect God could
create himself as perfection could create perfection. With this, I still
question that God could be the source of His own existence, because
if we were to make an exception to the rule of all things must have
a cause, isn’t it possible that Descartes or a deceiver could be the
source of his own existence, too? Since opening a loophole for the
existence of God being because of Himself would also open the
causation argument to loopholes for other possible methods of
existence, no matter how perfect or imperfect, I believe that the
premise that all things must have a cause outside of themselves is an
incorrect assumption.
Descartes bases the existence of God upon a hierarchy of
existence in humans, God, and all other things. He states that since
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
God is an infinite being, that we humans, as finite beings, could never
be the source of an idea of an infinite being. The source of God as
an infinite being is supposed to be an innate characteristic in humans,
it seems Descartes believed. He uses this premise to prove that God
is an infinite being and therefore has more objective reality than
humans do. Descartes never spells out his reasoning behind his
premise he bases much of his argument from. I do not think this
premise makes sense and Descartes does not explain his reasoning
behind this statement or belief. I do not think that there are any
objections to my argument regarding his lack of explanation. It seems
that the only possible alternative would be to accept that his premise
is correct and that humans could not create the idea of an infinite
being because humans are finite. As I do not understand nor agree
with this alternative, I have no reply to this argument.
I do not agree with the conclusion that Descartes reached
regarding the existence of God being the reason he is not deceived
in his Meditation Four. If Descartes could be correct about the possible
existence of an evil deceiver, couldn’t the evil deceiver deceive
Descartes into believing that God exists and is the source of his
existence? As far as I can investigate within my own mind, this is a
possibility and all of his beliefs such as the fact that he exists and
his reasoning toward the existence of God could be artificially formed
in him through the deception of the evil deceiver. So, if Descartes
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
were being deceived the entire time, then the deceiver could certainly
deceive him of the existence of God and possibly even the existence
of himself. A possible argument mine would be in support of the
hierarchy of existence in that an infinite being must exist to create
finite beings. If an evil deceiver did exist, it would likely be a finite
being which would then require that it were created by God and
placed higher on the hierarchy than Descartes was. The problem I find
with an argument based on this reasoning would be that Descartes
concluded he were not being deceived by God because God is an
infinite and pure being. If someone were to argue that God and an
evil deceiver could exist simultaneously due to the existence of the
evil deceiver depending on God, wouldn’t that lead to the acceptance
that God was willing and able to create a being that deceives
humans? Because of this line of reasoning, I would conclude that if
one were to argue that the existence of an evil deceiver would
depend on God’s existence that they would contradict themselves in
supporting Descartes’ argument in Mediation Four since that would
require God creating an evil deceiver. If someone were to argue that
the evil deceiver could exist on its own, then this would bring the
conversation back to the question of whether or not a being could be
the source of its own existence, which I covered in earlier paragraphs.
I do not agree with Descartes’ premise that he could be
dreaming and unaware of it. Descartes never really proves that this
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
possibility is false and therefore I assume that he had no way of
deciding whether or not this was a true possibility or not. I think that
it is very possible to determine whether or not I am sleeping or
dreaming. At times I am able to control my dreams by lucid
dreaming. Lucid dreaming is when a person is aware that they are
dreaming and are able to control what happens in their dreams. When
I lucid dream, I am able to control what is happening such as defy
the laws of gravity and physics by flying and willing things to appear
or disappear. Because I am able to control dreams and I am also
aware that these dreams are happening, I do not believe it is entirely
impossible to be completely undetermined whether someone is
dreaming or not. A possible objection to my argument could be to
suggest that lucid dreaming is merely deep imagination rather than
the actual form of dreaming which Descartes seems to mean. My
reply to such an argument would be that although I am aware and
willing the dream to happen, I am still asleep to the outside world.
When I am lucid dreaming, I often fall into a deep sleep in which
others have difficulty waking me. So, although I am controlling the
dream from the beginning and willing that to happen, I am still
sleeping as it happens.
My last argument against the conclusions of Descartes due to
the incomplete and unproven premises by which his argument is built
upon is not my own, but a famous argument against Descartes which
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11
is of his reasoning behind the existence of God to be in a circle,
more fondly named as the Cartesian Circle by philosophers over the
centuries. In Meditation Three, Descartes reasons that what he clearly
perceives must be true. Then, Descartes uses this assumption to prove
God exists as a perfect being that would not deceive him. Based on
his belief then that God is not a deceiver, he then thinks that he can
completely believe that his clear perceptions are true. Through this
reasoning, Descartes uses his assumption about being able to believe
fully in his clear perceptions to prove the existence of clear
perceptions, which is reasoning in a circle. Descartes does not
comment on this circular reasoning and therefore I believe this
subjects him and his argument, along with my other points in previous
paragraphs, to being very unstable and likely unprovable.
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 11