Group 1: Paper 2

8/4/2019 Group 1: Paper 2

1/5

The basic foundation of Descartes argument for existence is I think,

therefore I am. In his book Meditations on First Philosophy, the French

philosopher notes in the first two meditations that thought, the substance of being,

is made up of three different entities: judgment, perception and imagination.

However amongst these three faculties of thought, Descartes takes specific care to

clarify that, none of what I can grasp by means of the imagination pertains to this

knowledge that I have of myself. (20) Descartes firmly believes that the

imagination is rendered useless when trying to define himself as imagination is

merely a simulation of a shape or image of a corporeal thing, and therefore cannot

be relied upon as a valid source of truth since it is capable of contorting any form of

perception. For Descartes, the journey to discover the self hinges more on judgment

and perception rather than imagination. Yet while Descartes tosses imagination

aside as a blunt tool of self-discovery, he does note that it is an important facet of

our existence. I believe however that the imaginations role in helping to define self

exceeds Descartes valuation. In this essay, I will explore the role that imagination

plays in Descartes first two meditations and in doing so seek to demonstrate why it

is actually crucial in his search for the definition of self.

The reason for which Descartes discards imagination as a plausible tool in

defining self is because he claims that, the knowledge of this I does notdepend

upon things of whose existence I do not yet have knowledge. Therefore it is not

dependent upon any of those things that I simulate in my imagination. (19-20)

While Descartes argument is no doubt logical, he draws this conclusion with what I

believe to be a narrow definition of imagination. The French philosopher is


2/5

referring specifically to the fantasy-generating aspect of the imagination, and is

neglecting whether purposely or unknowingly that reason cannot be achieved

without the other functions of the imagination.

Descartes himself states that this pronouncement I am, I exist is necessarily

true every time I utter or conceive it in my mind, (18) inferring that the conception

of the idea of self is all that truly matters in knowing that the self exists (I think,

therefore I am). But might I ask, isnt the act of imagining defined as the act of

conceiving something in the mind? And furthermore, would one not have to first

conceive the idea of one-self before even attempting to prove that one-self exists? I

argue yes. However, it is not as simple as this logic because one of Descartes

primary points is that thoughts in the imagination, even when utterly novel (15),

are in someway dependent on fundamental truths, or as he puts it, the colors from

which (15) these thoughts are fashioned. This idea is essential to Descartes

argument for why imagination is useless in defining the self because it implies that

an attempt to prove the existence of self through imagination would require

preconceived prejudices, however warped or exaggerated they may be, which is

what he is desperately trying to avoid using. Yet as I stated earlier, Descartes is

regarding imagination as having only the function to falsify, embellish or augment

perception.

Descartes defines perception as an inspection on the part of the mind alone,

(22) and upon inspecting his own mind perceiving his own self he ironically gets

caught in his own web of logic without realizing it. While Descartes explains that

imagination is merely simulating (20), he fails to realize that all of his musings and


3/5

conclusions to this point have been based off simulation. He has generated multiple

scenarios such as the possibility that everything he knows could turn out to be

nothing butdreams (20) and the piece of wax example to bolster his reason, but

each of these ideas was a product of his imagination. I find it odd that Descartes

does not see this himself as he specifically states any conception of truth must come

from within but be built upon an external perception. With this in mind, I posit that

the imagination is the generator of this internal truth.

As exhibited by his example of the men crossing the square, (22) Descartes

notes that judgment follows perception, and judgment helps discern between that

which is true and that which is false. Yet in judging, must not one first imagine the

various possibilities of the identity and true nature of that which is perceived before

one can pass apt judgment? I would again argue yes, and I would in this way posit

that imagination plays a role in judgment, but Descartes has an intriguing counter

argument that he presents when discussing how to define the piece of wax. He

understands this notion that I have presented, yet he believes that the imagination is

actually inept to perform the task of judgment because any corporeal thing takes on

an even greater variety of dimensions than I could ever grasp with imagination.

(22) Descartes here revisits his early notion that he must be wary of his ignorance.

He now is declaring the imagination useless in self-definition because of its

limitations in the ability to help mold a judgment. This is an argument very difficult

to counter, but there is a moment in the text when Descartes hints at a lack of

complete comprehension of imagination, and this is the only real loose end in his

theory.


4/5

In his many near-poetic moments of questioning the I, Descartes at one

point notes himself as he who imagines many things even against my will (20). It

appears to be a fleeting thought in a larger musing, but it is the only instance in the

first two meditations of Descartes acknowledging his regions of thought that are

beyond his control. It is understandable that Descartes would focus on defining the

self by focusing on the part of his mind that he can control, but he seems to toss

aside this free-roaming imagination as a distraction in the journey to define himself

rather than a guide. It is here that Descartes and I part ways.

I am of the firm belief that Descartes, in discussing imagination, is playing

with an idea that no one was actually aware of at the time of his writing this piece:

the subconscious. Being that there was no comprehension of the subconscious

during the time Descartes was writing, it would seem rather fruitless to bring this

up, but to ignore a blatant reference to the thoughts and emotions he experiences

against his will would be irresponsible in this argument. I think that perhaps the

reason Descartes discredits his imagination beyond the reasons he gives is

because he does not trust it. He knows that the imagination can run wild and

augment perception to the point that what is seen and what is judged to be seen are

two completely different entities.

Descartes central argument to the existence of self is that he can perceive

himself, yet it has already been established that perception is diluted by prejudices,

that is, judgments that have been predetermined by prior perceptions. So then I ask

what is an original thought? The answer would be there isnt such a thing since all

thought and judgment derives from previously established perceptions, which


5/5

means that to conceive of one-self is to conceive of a pre-existing idea that is

innately untrue not false, but simply not true, since by this logic nothing is true.

I am adopting Descartes mentality that I suppose everything I see is false,

(17) therefore implying that anything deemed to be true must be conjured from

within the mind. And now I ask: isnt imagination to conjure something from within

the mind, and as such, must then any valid perception be based upon a conception?

(Yes). Furthermore, since Descartes claims judgment is incumbent upon perception,

then judgment is equally and transitively incumbent upon conception. Moreover,

since to imagine is to conceive, than the judgment of self (i.e. the definition of self) is

a definition drawn from notions crafted by the imagination. In this way, the

imagination plays a crucial role in the definition of self.

I do not make this claim without acknowledging that it is disputable. One

might find Descartes humility, exhibited through his lack of confidence in his

imagination, to be proof enough that his logic is wiser than mine. I am not, however,

trying to prove Descartes wrong, that would be silly, he is the father of philosophy. I

am merely trying to expand upon the blueprint that he laid and have attempted to

clear up the seemingly murky category of the imagination. I think that Descartes

shied away from using the imagination to define the self because he was aware of its

limitations and also aware of his own limitations with regards to his knowledge

about it. Descartes logic to not depend upon things of whose existence I do not yet

have knowledge, applies directly to this notion. Perhaps Descartes and I see the

situation differently because I am perceiving his ideas, and he is conceiving them.

Documents

Group 1: Paper 2