Preliminary Interpretation of Descartes Meditations

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

René Descartes was a revolutionary figure in the 17th century during the renaissance period, at a time when the way people viewed the world was changing dramatically. In the past people had described things using a mixture of colour, hot, cold, sweet tasting, hard (secondary qualities) and distance, velocity, time, mass and acceleration (primary qualities). But in a time of dramatic change, mathematical science was, through mathmaticalised theories and predictions of measurable quantities proving primary qualities to be more reliable and efficient than secondary qualities. A now scientific, world seen predominantly by primary qualities left no place for secondary qualities. Descartes was in the forefront of renaissance maths, natural philosophy (physics) and wrote many books on geometry and astronomy among many other subjects. However in his book ‘Meditations and Other Metaphysical Writings’ he attempts to maintain his place as a mathematical scientist yet find a place for the secondary qualities, afraid that science will sweep them away. The place he finds for these secondary qualities is as part of the thinking substance.

Descartes begins the first meditation of ‘Meditations and Other Metaphysical Writings’ by introducing reasons why we can doubt everything which we have come to believe, even those things which we seem most sure are correct.

“Some years ago I noticed how many false things I had accepted as true in my childhood, and how doubtful were the things that I subsequently build on them”

As children we learn and accept many things without really looking deeper or challenging them; as we grow older we subsequently add more knowledge on top of this unchallenged knowledge, believing its foundations to be correct since we have always believed them and have never had reason to challenge them. Therefore Descartes suspects that he has acquired many incorrect beliefs. A building with rotten foundations, for example, might look structurally sound; nevertheless it has no stability and will eventually collapse. In this way Descartes believes that his beliefs are built on poor foundations and so he cannot be certain of any of them. This becomes the aim of the mediations, “Once in a lifetime, everything should be completely overturned and I should begin again from the most basic foundations if I ever wished to establish anything firm and durable” Descartes proposes to try and sort out his beliefs, getting rid of all those that are false, revealing what is left to be that which is the truth and which he can be certain of.

However to sort each and every individual belief he has acquired over a life time, would be an enormous task, far to large to undertake, in the case of the building with rotten foundations the only way to make it safe would be to pull the building down and then rebuild it on secure foundations. Likewise with his beliefs Descartes decides this is the best way to find truth and certainty. “As soon as foundations are undermined everything built on them collapses of its own accord, and therefore I will challenge directly all the first principles on which everything I formerly believed rest”.

To do this Descartes utilises a method by which he methodically eliminates all of the things he can possibly doubt in the slightest, thus whatever is left over must be the truth and must be certain, this method is known as the method of doubt. “But since reason already convinces us that we should withhold assent just as carefully from whatever is not completely certain and indubitable as from what is clearly false, if I find some reason for doubt in each of my beliefs that will be enough to reject all of them” It should be pointed out that Descartes is not a sceptic, he is only using scepticism as a tool to discredit those beliefs which are false, so as to uncover truth and certainty. Descartes has 3 waves of doubt before he eventually gains a foothold into the truth and certainty he is looking for. This first wave of doubt is based on the senses. In his search for unshakable knowledge he starts by reminding himself that a large part of what he has accepted has been based on the senses, sight, sound, hearing, touch and taste and what they have revealed to him. However it is these same senses that have often led him to be mistaken, Descartes then goes on to say “it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once” meaning if the senses have fooled us once then could it not be the case that they are always deceiving us? Nonetheless Descartes brushes over this saying “But despite the fact that the senses occasionally deceive us about things that are very small or far away, perhaps there are many other things about which one surely cannot have doubts, even if they are derived from the sense” What Descartes is saying is that although the senses deceive us occasionally i.e. objects at a distance, this does not necessarily mean that they always do or that we should not trust them. There surely cannot be any doubt that he is sitting by the fire, wearing a dressing gown, holding a piece of paper in his hands. Descartes even suggests that to doubt this would be to doubt he has hands or that the body that is there is his, for this would be thinking like a mad person,

“The fact that I am here, sitting by the fire, wearing my dressing gown, holding this page in my hand and other things like that. Indeed, how could I deny these hands or that this body is mine, unless perhaps I think that I am like some of those mad people”

This concludes the first wave of doubt which serves mainly as a reflection of the senses and how they elude us and for this reason can be doubted.

Descartes next reflects upon the fact that he has often dreamed whilst asleep and in his dreams has been convinced that he is awake and not asleep in his bed, until he awakes to find himself in bed and realises his mistake. But if this is so, how can he be sure that he is not asleep all of the time or be certain of when he is asleep and when he isn’t? “When I think about this more carefully, I see so clearly that I can never distinguish, by reliable signs, being awake from asleep, that I am confused and this feeling of confusion almost confirms me in believing that I am asleep” He then goes on to say, suppose we are just dreaming and that we do not have such hands or bodies, however the things which we see when we are asleep are recognizable images which serve as copies of the real images. Thus these real things must exist since it is impossible for a painter to produce anything that does not have even a small essence of something real which actually exists, no matter how hard he tries “it must be admitted that at least some other things are real, that they are even more simple and general and that it is from them, as if from true colours, that all those images of things in our thoughts, both true and false, are constructed” He continues by saying that subjects such as physics, astronomy, medicine that involve the examination of complex things, can be doubted since they are based on things which have to exist, however other disciplines that discuss only very simple and general things that do not necessarily have to exist in nature, contain at least some certainty in his mind. The example he gives to clarify this point is “For whether or not I am awake or asleep 2 and 3 added together makes 5 and a quadrilateral figure has no more than 4 sides. It seems impossible that one could ever suspect that such clear thoughts are false” Although later on he will find a way to doubt even these general things. This 2nd wave of doubt surrounding general reality (is he awake or asleep etc), mathematical and logical principles (2+3=5, quadrilateral shapes having 4 sides) increases in his strength of argument compared to the 1st wave of doubt, however it doesn’t lead him to doubt everything that can be doubted.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In the 3rd wave of doubt, having now doubted his senses, his sanity, general reality and logical mathematical principles, removes the last of all his beliefs, which he has not been able to remove through the 1st and 2nd waves. This is the most radical of the 3 waves of doubt, in this wave he questions whether God could have caused him to be mistaken in thinking that 2+3=5 or that a quadrilateral shape has 4 sides, doubting even the simple general things he earlier said would be impossible to find doubt with. However God is considered to be omnipotent (all powerful) and perfect and it would be inconsistent for God to create something that could be mistaken and thus less than perfect. “Since to be deceived and mistaken seems to be some kind of imperfection, the less powerful the author they assign to my origin, the more likely it is that I was made in such a way that I am always mistaken” He then supposes that God is not the source of truth, but instead some evil mind who is omnipotent and devoted to deceiving him. This allows Descartes to not only doubt his sense, general reality, but also all mathematics and logic, since all of these things could just be being fed to him constantly by this omnipotent deceiver. To then validate this theory wit out changing it in a substantial way, Descartes then imagines that this evil deceiver is not a God but a malicious demon, and that this demon is also systematically deceiving him and leading him astray. “I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and everything external to me are nothing more than the creatures of dreams by means of which an evil spirit entraps my credulity. I shall imagine myself as if I had no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, no senses at all, but as if my beliefs in all these things were false” The hypothesis of an evil deceiver gives him reason to doubt all those things he clearly and distinctively sees, which was what he was aiming to do, to knock down all of his former beliefs, to find what is true and certain and to rebuild his beliefs from solid and true foundations.

In a struggle to find some kind of foothold, something certain that cannot be doubted Descartes doubt is brought to a halt by the recognition that, even if there is an evil deceiver deceiving him in to believing everything he’s ever believed, Descartes cannot be deceived into believing he does not exist. For if Descartes did not exist then he could not be deceived, thus he must exist for him to be being deceived by such an evil deceiver. “There is some unidentified deceiver, however, all powerful and cunning, who is dedicated to deceiving me constantly. Therefore, it is indubitable that I also exist, if he deceives me. And let him deceive me as much as he wishes, he will still never bring it about that I am nothing as long as I think I am something. Thus having weighed up everything adequately, it must be finally stated that this proposition ‘I am, I exist’ is necessarily true whenever stated by me or conceived in my mind” Therefore the first piece of true certainty Descartes can be sure of is that as long as he is thinking he exists.

Although Descartes now knows he exists, he does not know exactly what he is. After considering what he used to think he was; he used to think he was a human being with a body that could be perceived by senses, but still imaging there to be an evil deceiver he cannot believe he has a body or that he even senses a real world truly. Finally he concludes that he is a thing that thinks. “To think? That’s it. It is thought. This alone cannot be detached from me. I am, I exist; that is certain” But for how long? If he stops thinking does that mean he no longer exists? Descartes would accept this as he says “But for how long? As long as I think, for it might possibly happen if I ceased completely to think that I would thereby cease to exist at all”

“I think, therefore I am” or “I am thinking, therefore I am” this is the first thing Descartes is sure of and is referred to as the cogito from the Latin form of the expression, ‘Cogito ergo sum’. There are however a few discrepancies with the cogito, firstly the structure of the cogito is puzzling:

Premise1: I think

Conclusion: therefore I am (or exist)

There is a premise missing which should go before the first premise to link the two together and make his statement logical. Rather it should read more like:

Major premise: Everything which thinks, exists

Minor premise: I am thinking

Conclusion: I exist

However if Descartes was to include the point ‘Everything which thinks, exists’ it would be contradictory to everything else he has said since ‘Everything which thinks, exists’ can be doubted since it would have been rejected with mathematical thought and thus should not be used. Maybe this is why he leaves it out? It is not certain.

Another uncertainty with the cogito is what form it is supposed to take. The ‘therefore’ used in it suggest in is an argument and if we include the major premise ‘Everything which thinks, exists’ which is missed out then the cogito would follow the form of an Aristotelian syllogism (a 3 part structured argument) but since there isn’t a major premise of ‘Everything which thinks, exists’ then maybe this isn’t an argument but rather a statement. As a first principle of truth and certainty this is a rather shaky foundation.

Descartes now knowing that he exists and that he is a ‘thinking thing’ asks what exactly a thinking thing is. “But what, then, am I? A thinking thing. And what is that? A thing which doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, does not will and which also imagines and sense.” He elaborates on why he is a thinking thing and how he must be correct in this judgement by saying “Am I not the very one who was just doubting almost everything, who still however, understands something, who affirms that this one thing is true, who denies the rest, who wishes to know more, who does not wish to be deceived, who imagines many things even despite myself and notices many things as if they came from the senses? Which of these is not as true as the fact that I exist, even if I am constantly asleep and even if whoever created me deludes me as much as they can? Which of these is distinct from my thought?”

Returning back to the cogito, looking closer at the minor premise ‘I am thinking’ we become aware that there is one thing which Descartes has never doubted. Descartes never doubts whether he is actually ever thinking, he never doubts that he doubts and he never doubts mental information, although he doubts if it is real. He does however explain this, “Thus I am the same subject who senses, or who notices physical things as if through the senses; for example, I already see light, hear sound and feel heat. Those are false, because I am asleep. But I certainly seem to see, to hear and to get warm. This cannot be false. This is what is meant, strictly speaking, by me having a sensation and, understood precisely in this way, it is nothing other than thinking”

The diagram below explains more on how Descartes understands thought and the mind.

Consciousness

Descartes was the first person to see the mind and thought in this way and invented the idea of consciousness. Consciousness is being aware of internal perceptions/ internal knowledge which are contained in a mind of a person or the ‘I’. Descartes sees the mind as an enclosed space which contains all internal mental items/activities or thoughts i.e. Desires, feelings, sense experiences. These thoughts are private mental experiences in your head (X in the box) which show representations of an outside world (X) which may or may not exist. However it is logical to say that if there is an inside, there must be an outside for that inside to appear separate from. Thus if there is an internal containing all mental activity there must be an outside. The only things we can ever be certain we are aware of is thoughts, for example, you cannot deny the feeling of pain, you are immediately aware of it even if the thing which appears to be creating you the pain i.e. scolding water, does not exist the fact that you are aware of the pain cannot be doubted. This therefore means that the minor premise is certain; since thinking is only internal representation and he is conscious of internal representation he cannot doubt it. Nobody else can be conscious of what other people are thinking or are conscious of, since the mind provides such a boundary keeping all internal representations inside, therefore one person’s representation of something may not be the same as another person’s representation of that same thing.

Descartes leads on from the mind to compare it to our knowledge of material things using a piece of wax as an example. Consider a piece of wax, something which most people would consider they understand by just looking at it, it doesn’t appear a difficult object to grasp but this is exactly Descartes point. “For example, let us take this wax. It has just been extracted from its honeycomb. It has not yet completely lost the taste of honey and it still retains some of the scent of flowers from which it was collected. Its colour, shape and size are obvious. It is hard, cold, easy to touch and, if tapped with a finger, it emits a sound. Thus it has everything that seems required for a body to be known as distinctly as possible” In spite of this when the wax is moved closer to the fire, it looses what remains of its taste and smell, the colour changes, it looses its shape, increases in size, becomes a liquid, becomes hot and can barely be touched and does not emit a sound if tapped. Yet no one can deny that it is still the same wax, so what exactly was it about the wax that was perceived and understood so clearly when it was first considered, since everything that we first assigned as a part which made the wax, wax has now changed or disappeared. So what exactly is the wax and how do you tell wax from anything else? Descartes answer to this is that the wax is an extended matter i.e. despite a number of changes it still takes up space and time. However it cannot be known truly through the senses, since what is presented to the senses as wax changes dramatically and so the senses have an unclear or confused perception of what the wax really is. The mind on the other hand, has a clearer conception of the wax since it disregards all the properties that confuse the senses and concludes that what is left is the true essence of the wax, that is, that the wax is an extendable, flexible, changeable thing. This is only learnt through our mental perception of the wax, although the senses do play a part we cannot judge what the wax truly is just by our senses, it takes a mind to uncover its true essence. “I know now that even bodies are not perceived by the senses or the faculty of imagining, but are perceived only by the mind, and that they are not perceived by being touched or seen but only by being understood, and therefore I know clearly that there is nothing that can be perceived by me more easily or more clearly than my own mind”

Descartes goes on to show one more example of this “had I not looked out of the window at people passing on the street below and said, in the same customary way as in the case of the wax, that I saw people themselves. But what do I see part from hats and coasts, under which it may be that there are automata hidden? Nonetheless, I judge that they are people. In this case, however, what I thought I saw with my eyes I only understand by the faculty of judging, which is in my mind” What Descartes is saying is that had he used only his sense to judge what was passing on the street below, he would have said they were just hats and coats, however when he uses his mind to understand the things which were passing on the street below he concludes that they are people. If Descartes had just concluded that what he saw with his senses was what the object truly was, he would have been wrong and so in conclusion this re-iterates the point that objects can only be perceived by a judging mind and not entirely through the senses.

The combined understanding Descartes has reached, that objects can only be truly perceived by the mind together with the discovery of his first true certainty ‘I think, therefore I am’ results in the method of clear and distinct ideas being formed. By considering this first principle of truth and certainty, he can analyze its form to discover which part of it makes it true, consequently he can use this information in future so as to recognise other statements which are certain and true. However, on closer inspection of the statement ‘I think, therefore I am’ he becomes aware that there is nothing at all contained in it that assures him of its certainty, other than the fact that he perceives it so very clearly that it cannot possibly be false. He for that reason accepts as a general rule, that everything that can be perceived so clearly and distinctly must therefore be true and certain – The method of clear and distinct ideas.

He then considers other things which he has perceived so clearly, “the Earth, sky, stars and all other things that I used to perceive by means of the senses” These things he has now come to doubt, yet he perceived them so clearly before he started the mediations. Nevertheless, he dismisses these things since they were perceived by the senses and not by the mind and so even if he was incorrect about these things (since the senses often mislead us) they were not clear and distinct ideas since they were not perceived by the mind and so are not truths like the Cogito. On the other hand considering his thoughts on arithmetic and geometry he says “did I not see at least those things sufficiently clearly to claim that they are true? Indeed, I subsequently decided that I should doubt them simply because it occurred to me that some God may have endowed me with such a nature that I could be deceived even about tings that seem most evident” In comparison to the stars and earth perceptions, arithmetic and geometry appear even stronger in clarity and distinctiveness to Descartes. The only way Descartes can doubt them is by the idea that there is an evil deceiver who’s main aim is to deceive him all the time; yet he has no reason to think that such a God exists, whether he is a deceiver or not. Consequently in order to clarify the truth or certainty of mathematics, geometry and such disciplines he will now go on to consider the existence of God and the possibility that he could be an evil deceiver deceiving him all the time.

Descartes provides 2 proofs for the existence of God. The first is the trademark argument, here Descartes sets about to explain that from within us we have this idea of God, “By the word ‘God’ I understand some infinite substance, which is independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful, and by which both I, and everything else that exists (if anything else exists), were created” He then goes on to explain the principle of casual adequacy, where by, any cause must have at least as much perfection as its effect(s) “Something cannot be made from nothing, and, likewise, that something which is more perfect-in other words, that which contains more reality in itself- cannot be made from that which is less perfect”. Contained within these thoughts Descartes finds clear and distinct ideas, confirming that he is on the right lines. He continues by saying “if the internal reality of anyone of my ideas is so great that I am certain that I do not contain this reality in myself either formally or eminently and, therefore, that I myself cannot be its cause, it follows necessarily that I am not alone in the world and that something else exists, which is the cause of the idea”. In other words the idea of God is so great, that he is certain it could not have arisen from himself, since every cause has as much reality as its effect and Descartes being imperfect, does not contain within himself as much reality as the idea of God, thus something separate from himself must have placed that idea in him. The trademark argument can be broken down and simplified as shown below:

P1). We have the idea of a perfect being i.e. God

P2). Principle of casual adequacy: any cause has at least as much perfection as its effects, the trademark of a good being is of a good God.

P3). ‘I’ am imperfect

C). God as an actual perfect being must have created the perfect idea, thus God exists.

This demonstrates that there is a God and that he has placed the idea (of God) in him, like a painter might sign his paintings.

Descartes considers whether he could exist if there were no such all powerful being to have created him. Descartes explains how he (himself) could not possibly be his own creator since “there would be nothing that I would either doubt or wish for, nor would I lack absolutely anything. For I would have given myself every perfection of which I have some idea and thus I would be God himself” for this very reason Descartes could not have created himself or he would have given himself all the qualities of perfection and thus would be God. Another point he makes is that had he always existed, he would still need the power to keep himself in existence i.e. to bring himself into existence every single moment of time, yet he says he is not aware of such power and so further denies he is the creator of himself. “Therefore, I should now ask myself: have I enough power by which I can bring it about that I, who exist at present, will still exist a short time in the future?” “If I had such a power I would undoubtedly be aware of it. But I do not experience any such power, and therefore I know very evidently that I depend on some being which is distinct from me” Descartes also sates that his parents cannot be the creator of him since who created them and who created the creator of them, the answer leading right back to God.

The second proof of God or ontological proof, is a proof of the existence of God from his own nature or properties. The ontological proof then states that:

P1). Definition: God is a being, possessing ALL perfections.

P2). If God did not exist he would then lack one perfection, namely existence.

C). Necessarily God exists. Its part of Gods essence (essential properties) to exist or he would lack perfection and would not be God.

By the very definition of God, he is perfect and if he didn’t exist he therefore would not be perfect since he didn’t have the quality of existence necessary to be perfect and if he wasn’t perfect then he subsequently would not be God and thus in conclusion God must exist and be perfect since we have the idea of him. If God was not perfect and so did not exist we would not have the idea of him in the first place since the trademark proof states that we must get the idea of God from God himself.

Both the trademark proof and the ontological proof start with something internal, which he hasn’t denied, to argue something on the outside i.e. God.

Having now proved Gods existence he is now able to banish the concept of an evil deceiver, for if God exists and is perfect then it follows that God is no evil deceiver since deception is an imperfection. “It follows clearly enough that he cannot be a deceiver, since it is evident by the natural light of reason that every fraud and deception results from some defect” This brings us in a circular motion back to the beginning of the meditations again By discarding the idea of an evil deceiver, all those things which were doubted purely on the basis that he could be being deceived by an evil deceiver, arithmetic and geometry for example can no longer be doubted since God is perfect and good and would not deceive us. If God is perfect and does not deceive us then there isn’t anything misleading us into thinking there is a world when there isn’t. Therefore there must be a world around us and matter such as bodies and objects must exist in some form. Since God does not send these ideas to Descartes directly or through any other means that Descartes can understand but rather on the contrary, he has lead Descartes to believe that these ideas come from the physical objects themselves. Then in conclusion this must be the case or God would be deceiving us and God is not a deceiver. Thus the objects must be emitting the ideas from themselves proving them to exist as separate real substances. “But God is not a deceiver; it is perfectly obvious, therefore, that he does not send these ideas to me directly from himself. Nor does he send them indirectly by means of some creature which contains the intentional reality of the ideas, not formally but only eminently. He obviously gave me no faculty to recognise such an argument; on the contrary, he gave me a strong tendency to believe that these ideas are emitted from physical things, and therefore I cannot see how he can be understood as not being a deceiver if they originate from anything except physical things. Therefore, physical things exist.”

Derived from the Cogito earlier on in the mediations and clarified at the end of the meditations, Descartes accepts a concept of dualism. This is the idea that substances come in 2 forms, Mind, the thinking substances and Matter or physical substance, matter being extended substance including bodies. Descartes believes that people are made of these two substances which have 2 very different natures/essential properties. The essence of the mind is to be a thinking substance and the essence of a body is to be an extended substance and to occupy time and space. However Descartes states that it is not in our essence to be a body, since he can doubt that he has a body and therefore may not have one. Therefore his existence does not depend upon the existence of his body or anything physical.Descartes concludes that it is not in his essence to be a body because essence is that property something must have to exist as the kind of thing it is and since he might not have a body altogether body does not count for essence at all. Thus the mind and the body must be 2 distinct substances, for you can have a mind without having to have a body. Descartes does not deny that there is not some form of very close connection linking the two, thus why we feel hunger or pain “Nature also teaches by means of the sensations of pain, hunger, thirst etc that I am not present to my body only in the way that a pilot is present to a ship, but that I am very closely joined to it and almost merged with it to such an extent that, together with it, I compose a single entity. Otherwise, when my body is injured I (who am nothing but a thinking thing) would not feel pain as a result; instead I would perceive such an injury as a pilot perceives by sight some part of the ship is damaged” So in conclusion what Descartes is saying is that we are made up of 2 separate substances which, however, are dependant on each other to function and share some form of connection linking the 2 together making one thing, a person, this is known as Cartesian interaction. “I am not present to my body only in the way that a pilot is present to a ship, but that I am very closely joined to it and almost merged with it to such an extent that, together with it, I compose a single entity”

Descartes finishes the meditations by wrapping up all the loose ends. Descartes says that it is in our nature to be deceived by the senses on occasion despite the goodness of God, for example when you are ill and you appear to feel a dryness of the throat although fluid is not actually required its only due to the illness you feel in need of a drink. “If it happens occasionally that dryness of the throat arises, not as it usually does because a drink is conducive to the health of the body but from some other contrary cause (as happens in the case of dropsy)” However saying this Descartes adds that the senses however to happen to tell him the truth more than they deceive him about the needs of the body and he can always use more than one of the senses and memory as a check and so he should no longer fear being incorrect. “Clearly, I know that all the senses tell me much more frequently what is true rather than false about those things that pertain to the welfare of the body, and I can almost always use more than one of the senses to examine the same thing. I can also use memory, which links present sensations with previous sensations, as well as my understanding which has already looked into all causes of error. Therefore I should no longer fear that those things are false which my senses reveal to me on a daily basis” The extreme doubt from the beginning of the meditations which resulted from Descartes inability to distinguish between being awake and being asleep, should be disregarded. Descartes now realises that dreams are never joined by memories with all other activities in life, compared with when he is awake. For when things occur in such a way that Descartes can see distinctly where they came from, when and where they occur and how they link in with the rest of his life without having to interpret them, then he can be certain that he is awake and not dreaming. He can now also never doubt the truth since, if he can call upon all his senses, memory and understanding to examine something and receives no sign that it is false, then he has no reason to doubt that thing.

Descartes concludes the meditations by saying that since God is not a deceiver, then, if we use our senses, memory and understanding carefully then we will never be wrong in our judgements. However the fast pace of life does not always allow us enough time to judge things carefully enough therefore the nature of human life often leads us to be mistaken. “For the fact that God is not a deceiver it follows that, in such cases, I am completely free from error. But the urgency of things to be done does not always allow us time for such a careful examination; it must be granted, therefore, that human life is often subject to mistakes about particular things, and the weakness of out nature must be acknowledged.”

Michelle Saunders Page