Descartes attempt to prove God’s existence is known as the ontological argument. The key thought in this argument is that; if you can understand what is meant by God you can see that God must exist. The argument can be simply set up as shown below:
- The idea of God is that of a supremely perfect being.
- it is better to exist than not to exist (existence is a perfection)
God must exist otherwise he wouldn’t be perfect.
This argument looks like a valid argument, as Descartes has a clear and distinct thought of what the idea of God encompasses including the property of perfection. He believes that for something to be ultimately perfect it must have existence- surely it is better to exist than not to? Therefore God must exist for him to be supremely perfect.
There have been many objections, to this argument, one of these being put forward by Gessendi. He said that Descartes’ reasoning ‘if it were valid, could be used to prove the existence of a greatest conceivable anything’. Gessendi came up with the counter argument about the perfect horse Pegasus:
- Pegasus is the perfect horse
- it is better to exist than not to exist
Pegasus must exist otherwise he is not the perfect horse.
Descartes did try and refute this argument by saying that the idea of Pegasus is that of just a perfect horse and not of an all supreme entity.
Another objection to Descartes ontological argument was raised by Hume and Kant in the 18th century, and can be summarised by the slogan ‘existence is not a predicate’. Kant states ‘ ‘being’ is obviously not a real predicate; that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing.’ Kant is claiming that there is not some extra property that brings a thing into existence. For example with an apple it has many predicates such as being red and round. But it does not need a certain existence property as according to Kant there isn’t one; it’s just the fact that when these properties are found together the apple exists. In Descartes ontological argument he considers that existence must be a predicate of God for him to perfect, but as Kant explains this does not have to be the case as existence is not a predicate.
The next passage to consider is:
‘I can image myself watching my own funeral, so I must have a clear and distinct idea of myself as different from my body, so I can exist without my body’.
This is similar to one of Descartes argument for the duality of mind and body found mediations. Descartes starts his reasoning by stating that ‘all the things I conceive clearly and distinctly can be produced by God’. From this statement Descartes then goes on to explain that he does not ‘not observe that any other thing belongs necessarily to my nature expect that I am a thinking thin’ and that he has ‘a clear and distinct idea of myself in so far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing’ and so ‘my mind.. is entirely and truly distinct from my body’. And so a similarity can be seen with the above passage.
Descartes argument for dualism is simply then that; whatever he can clearly and distinctly understand must be true as God is no deceiver, he clearly and distinctly understands his mind to be separate and distinct from his body therefore it must be. One objection to this argument was made by Antoine Arnold. He believed that Descartes could not actually conceive of his body and mind being completely apart. He gave the counter-example of ‘Suppose Descartes had argued instead that he could clearly and distinctly conceive that a Euclidean triangle had the property of being right-angled, without thereby clearly and distinctly conceiving that it obeyed Pythagoras’s theorem, and therefore it was possible for there to be a right angled to which Pythagoras’s theorem did not apply’ Descartes did not think this was a good enough objection to his proof and came up with a notion of complete and incomplete beings. He said that you can not have a complete idea of a Euclidean triangle without it obeying Pythagoras’s theorem. Descartes illustrated this point with the idea of motion; it is true that you can think about motion without thinking of body but you can have a complete idea of motion without considering with it a moving thing. The same is not true with the mind and body as theses you can have a complete idea of them separately for instance with death, but I do not think that this proves that the mind and body are separate but more so that it is possible that they may be.
Another problem with Descartes idea of Dualism is the problem of interaction. Descartes explains the mind as ‘immaterial and without spatial existence, how then can it interact with something which is by definition material?’ Also contained in this problem is the effects drugs can have on the way we think. Descartes came up with the idea that the mind interacts through the pineal glad but this still has the same problem in that it is a material thing.
There are many other views about what the mind or soul is. One opposite thought to Descartes is the Buddhist belief of anatta. This is thought that ‘living beings do not have a soul or self in the sense of a permanent, unchanging spiritual entity created by god’. Many believe that we are a collection of experiences that change from moment to moment. They believe ‘the real you is what you feel, see, think and choose to do with your life.’ This causes problems for Descartes as his argument relies on the fact that we have an innate clear and distinct perception that our mind and body or separate but The Buddhist have had this counter teaching for thousands of years.
One of the major problems for both Descartes proof of God and dualism is that of the Cartesian circle this is where Descartes commits the fallacy of begging the question. Descartes starts the meditations by doubting everything, he gets to the point where he realises all he knows for certain is that he is a thinking thing. To get from this position Descartes uses the idea of clear and distinct perception. He states ‘all the things we conceive very clearly and distinctly are true.’ He opines this as he believes God is no deceiver and so would not put a false idea into his head. A problem then occurs for the two arguments discussed above. In Descartes proof of Gods existence he uses idea that he has a clear and distinct idea of God. But the reason Descartes can rely on these clear and distinct perceptions due to God’s existence and so the argument is circular.
I think in the contexts of the meditations the ontological argument and the arguments for dualism don’t work due to the Cartesian circle, as Descartes never gets past proving undoubtedly anything but; I think therefore I am. Descartes reasoning in my opinion does not prove God’s existence or the duality of mind and body but more shows that it may be possible. This is largely due to the criticisms raised in this essay, such as the problem of interaction. It is maybe that we do not yet now enough about the essence of the mind to understand it completely.
Bibliography
Rene Descartes, ‘Discourse on Method and the Meditations’ Penguin books 1968.
Unit 2 Rene Descartes: The Meditations. Philosophy ‘A’ level, the national extension college trust Ltd.
Brain Davies OP, ‘Philosophy of Religion, A guide to the subject.’ Cassell 1999
Immanuel Kant, (trans. N Kemp Smith) ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, London 1964
Unknown Source
W. Owen Cole ‘Six World Faiths’ Continuum 2000
Mel Thompson ‘Eastern Philosophy’ Teach yourself 2003
Pg 40 philosophy ‘A’ level
pg 143 Rene Descartes ‘discourse on method and the mediations’
pg 54 ‘Philosophy of religion’ Brain Davies OP
pg502 Immanuel Kant, ‘critique of pure Reason’
Pg156 Rene Descartes ‘discourse on method and the mediations’
www.phiosohpyonline.co.uk’
Pg149 ‘six world faiths’ W. Owen Cole
pg53 ‘eastern philosophy’ Mel Thompson
Pg113 Rene Descartes ‘discourse on method and the mediations’
