Does Descartes manage to defeat scepticism and leave room for human error?

Authors Avatar

Does Descartes manage to defeat scepticism and leave room for human error?

Descartes believes he has defeated scepticism by acknowledging the idea that there clearly and distinctly exists a being that is  ‘independent and complete’- God. He finds it necessary to demonstrate the existence of God in order to seek knowledge of things other than the assertion ‘I am thinking, therefore I am’.

Descartes highlights that there is a contradiction in saying that God is a deceiver because that would imply that God is malicious. Furthermore Descartes says that within him is ‘a faculty of judgement’ of which he is certain has come from God. Thus for Descartes God would not give him a faculty that would make him capable of error. Despite these observations Descartes acknowledges that we are capable of error. The latter seems inconsistent with the previous statements.

Since God is not the source of human error Descartes works on finding an alternative explanation. Descartes says as humans are not supreme beings they are prone to making mistakes. Thus human error is not due to God but due to the fact that they are defects. In other words God has not given me a faculty that makes me go wrong, it is just that my ‘faculty of judgement’ is finite unlike God’s.

Join now!

However it is incomprehensible that a perfect creator does not create something which is perfect. If God has the power to make me error free why does he choose not to? Descartes answer lies in the idea that it is beyond human understanding to understand God’s reasons for such things. Just because we, as finite beings, do not have a sufficient understanding of God’s reasons, it is not a good enough reason to doubt God’s existence.

By offering a mere qualification of God’s nature here Descartes could be accused of not recognising the full extent of the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

This is a good start to an essay, which cuts off abruptly before a conclusion has been reached. The writing is lucid and quickly reaches the point. Presentation of Descartes' views is mostly accurate and some fair evaluation of these views is offered. As it stands, much of the essay doesn't really address the question. If the essay were to continue like this to present a basic conclusion as to whether, on balance, Descartes' arguments are successful, it would be deserving of a moderately good mark.