In exploring the certainty of the mind, Descartes examines a piece of wax and considers how its physical presence relates to the minds ability to perceive all around it. He defines that not only the senses are used in examining the wax, but there is a point “purely of mental scrutiny” (p.21) where he perceives the wax solely by his mind alone. This example appears to be flawed as it does not provide evidence of the minds worth against the body. It demonstrates an uncertainty in how we perceive our environment. For how can he perceive the wax purely by this “mental scrutiny” if he has never taken any previous sensory perceptions of it? For anything examined or imagined by the mind alone is taken from these sensory experiences; even a unicorn which does not exist in the external world is still taken from our experience of horses and horns, just combined together in a unique way. There is then reliance upon the body in which to formulate the perceptions of the mind; as we can not be certain of the body, how can we be certain of the mind. The relationship between the two is so entwined that to disregard one is perhaps to disregard the other.
Descartes takes this problem and tackles it by reasoning that even if we have no certainty of what our sensory perceptions are, the idea of the wax is still there. For no matter if they are false, the idea of the wax is a perception of the mind, and in this perception it is further proof that we are thinking, therefore we have evidence of ourselves as thinking beings. In comparison to this, the sensory experience of the physical world are ever changing: “Evidently none of the features of which I arrived at by means of the senses; for whatever came under taste, smell, sight, touch or hearing has now altered – yet the wax still remains”(p.20). We can use our senses to help use perceive the world, but those senses alone are inadequate; it is only through the mind that a true understanding can be had. So it is the mental scrutiny, a certainty beyond the senses that allows me to know that the wax is there. Where the body has failed us, the mind has held firm.
If I am certain that the mind exists, then does that mean that the body must also? As all my perceptions taken through the body are sensory, and these can be deceived by a malicious demon, what proof do I have that the body exists? For everything I experience could merely be illusion, and even if this gives me a foundation to think, all I can prove is that I have a mind. In regards to the wax argument, when Descartes places the wax by the fire all the sensory perceptions of it change as this throws of certainty of the body into doubt. Yet, although this perception of the wax has changed the wax is still there and our bodily senses cannot explain the differences, it is our intellect alone that identifies it still as wax. In this sense it is only our mind that can explain the changes through interpreting our senses. This links our mind to the body, as we cannot have these different perceptions without a body to sense them. Even though these senses are changing and in doubt, we are still using the body to experience this. This irrefutably links the mind and body, both equally dependent on each other to experience the world.
Although I am certain that I have a mind, there is still the doubt that the mind is mine and what this “I” in “I exist” actually is. Descartes speaks of the mind and thought but never specifically states what the concept of “I” is: “I do not yet have a sufficient understanding of what this ‘I’ is, that now necessarily exists”. Georg Lichtenberg used this to attack Descartes’ Meditation in this way for, as the demon proves that there must be thought, this could just mean that “there is thinking going on”. Yet, one way in which Descartes can be interpreted is to assume that the mind cannot be separate from ‘I’, as he is not trying to prove “I” in an individual existence, but as “I” and the mind as one whole thing. This further validates his claim that the mind is better known than the body.
Even though it is reasonable to agree with Descartes assertion that the mind is better known than the body, it is clear that an element of doubt remains. Russell highlights this is in his book “Problems of Philosophy”: “It is of course possible that all or any of our beliefs may be mistaken, and therefore all ought to be held with at least some slight element of doubt. But we cannot have reason to reject a belief except on the ground of some other belief.” Hence how can we reject the solution to having a body when we have very limited beliefs of anything else? There is a no more agreeable solution to me than Descartes’, when considering how well we know ourselves in the face of doubt. As to overcome Scepticism we must find certainty within our own thoughts, and to allow this to become the Archimedean point that cannot be doubted.
As Descartes takes his Meditations forward, he uses “clear and distinct perception” to confirm the existence of God. This “clear and distinct perception” is taken from his certainty of the mind, but it is here where some of his arguments begin to fail. For although I can easily agree with his reasoning for the existence of my own mind, he then uses this method to clarify other perceptions of which I do not agree with. While we can know the mind with more certainty than the body, it is not a secure enough platform from which to know other areas of existence, as the contents of the mind can still be called into doubt.
The uncertain nature of reality is something that plagues Descartes throughout his meditations; that he attempts to secure certainty within the mind is perhaps not surprising. Whether I am as comfortable with this solution as Descartes is, is questionable. For although I have undoubtedly been convinced of the existence of the mind, I have no proof of the existence of the body except that it is recognised by the mind. Such a fragile basis for philosophical debate cannot be accepted so we must strive for something with greater certainty. If we are to look at Descartes and his method of doubt then we are always open to the possibility of error.
Bibliography
Primary Text
Descartes, ‘Second Meditation’, Meditations on First Philosophy, (Cambridge University Press, 1996)
Secondary Text
Hatfield, Gary, ‘Discovering the Nature of the Mind’, Chapter 4 of Descartes and the Meditations, (London, Routledge, 2003)
Russell, Bertrand, ‘Chapter II The Existence of Matter’, (Edited in hypertext by Andrew Chrucky, 1998), http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus2.html. Accessed on Saturday 1st November 2008 14:53.
Descartes, ‘Second Meditation’, Meditations on First Philosophy, (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 16. All further references to this edition and are stated in the text.
Gary Hatfield, ‘Discovering the Nature of the Mind’, Chapter 4 of Descartes and the Meditations, (London, Routledge, 2003) p.103
Bertrand Russell, ‘Chapter II The Existence of Matter’, (Edited in hypertext by Andrew Chrucky, 1998), http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus2.html. Accessed on Saturday 1st November 2008 14:53.
