Descartes Critique Allison Caldwell

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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


Documents

Descartes Critique Allison Caldwell