Descartes's Meditations

Meditations on First Philosophy, In Which the Existence of God and the Distinction of the Soul from the Body Are Demonstrated

27 April 2024

---

Meditation I: On What Can Be Called into Doubt

Descartes attempts to establish truth, i.e. stable and lasting knowledge. He admits that it is not going to be easy, but he will try to do it. His main strategy as of now is to doubt everything, including those things that he finds certain, like the existence of his body. He doubts the existence of God, and even considers the possibility of an evil demon who tries to deceive him. As he continue to doubt, he finds that it is not easy to overcome his old beliefs and senses, and that they keep coming back to him.

Meditation II: On the Nature of the Human Mind, Which Is Better Known Than the Body

Descartes feels overwhelmed by the task of doubting everything. Nevertheless, he continues and rejects anything that is not certain to him, which at this point is everything: the world, his body, and even his senses. Does it follow that he himself does not exist? No, says Descartes. Although his body and his senses may be deceiving him, he must exist in the first place in order to be deceived. "I am, I exist", he concludes. But what is this "I" that exists? Descartes answers that he is a thinking thing, a "thing that thinks". Is this "I" distinct from his body? Descartes admits that he does not know, and he is not going to argue about it now. What is the nature of this thinking thing, then? Descartes says that it is:

"something that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and also senses and has mental images."

Is this not the case? Descartes has been doing these things all along, including his doubting of everything. Even if he is dreaming, or is deceived by an evil demon, he does all these things as the "I" that he is. This is so obvious to him that he cannot doubt it. Although all that which he has mental images of may not necessarily exist, the thing that has mental images does exist. Although his senses may deceive him, the ability to sense does exist.

Descartes imagines that there is a piece of wax in front of him, and he describes how it changes as it melts. Is it still the same piece of wax? Yes, says Descartes. But what is it that makes it the same piece of wax? An "extended, flexible, and changeable" substance. But what is this substance? Something that can be sensed, understood, and grasped by the mind, that is, by the "I" that thinks. The wax is most clearly and perfectly grasped by the mind only after it has been studied and examined, not by the senses alone. Furthermore, the wax affirms the existence of the mind. It is impossible to see the wax and to make a judgement about it without existing as a thinking thing.

Descartes concludes that physical objects are grasped by the mind, that the mind exists, and that the mind is the most certain thing that he knows.

Descartes is claiming that we have access to the world only through mental images or ideas. These ideas are grasped by the mind, and they serve as a kind of representation or symbol of the things "out there" in the world. These ideas are not necessarily true, sometimes they can be false and misleading.

Meditation III: On the Existence of God

Descartes is certain that he exists as a thinking thing. Now, he wants to know whether there are other things besides himself that exist. How can he tell whether something exists? Well, he knows that he exists, because he has perceived it clearly and distinctly. Thus, for Descartes, his criterion for the existence of something is that it has to be perceived clearly and distinctly.

Now, Descartes admits that he used to have false beliefs about the existence of things outside of himself, which he believed to be true because he perceived them clearly and distinctly. How can this be? Perhaps there is a God who is deceiving him. Descartes is not sure, but he is going to investigate further, and try to find out whether such a God exists.

Descartes begins by investigating the objects of his mind, i.e. his ideas. He lays down some claims about the nature of ideas:

1. Ideas exist as contents of the mind. Descartes calls this subjective reality, in contrast to formal reality, which is the reality of objects as they exist outside of the mind.
2. Ideas have different degrees of reality. Some ideas have more existence and perfection than others. For instance, the idea of a human being has more subjective reality than the idea of a stone.
3. Ideas can cause other ideas. Ideas can be derived from other ideas. For example, the idea of a unicorn can be derived from the ideas of a horse and a horn.
4. The cause of an idea must have at least as much subjective reality as the idea itself. If an idea causes another idea, then the cause must have at least as much reality as the effect. For example, the idea of a unicorn is caused by the ideas of a horse and a horn, which together have at least as much reality as the idea of a unicorn.
5. The cause of some ideas must have at least as much formal reality as the idea itself has subjective reality. Some ideas must be caused by something with formal reality, otherwise ideas can only be derived from other ideas, which leads to an infinite regress.

Point 5 is crucial for Descartes's argument, but it is not clear whether Descartes is justified in making this claim. Could it be possible for new ideas to be subjectively derived from combinations of other ideas, without the need for a formal cause?

Now, if Descartes can come up with an idea that has so much subjective reality that he himself cannot be the cause of the idea, then something else must exist, which is the cause of the idea, and which has more formal reality than he does. What idea could this be? Descartes lists down some potential candidates:

1. the idea of himself;
2. the idea of other human beings;
3. the idea of animals;
4. the idea of angels;
5. the idea of inanimate physical objects;
6. the idea of God.

Which one of these ideas could this be? Descartes dismisses the idea of himself, because he can easily be the cause of this idea. He also dismisses the ideas of other human beings, animals, and angels, because these can be caused by a combination of the other ideas on the list. What about the idea of inanimate physical objects? Could Descartes be the cause of these ideas? He seems to think so, a substance can be the cause of the idea of other substances, simply by virtue of being a substance. And since Descartes is a substance, he can be the cause of the ideas of inanimate physical objects, which are just ideas of substances.

What about the idea of God? Descartes defines God as that substance which is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, and supremely powerful. Could Descartes be the cause of such an idea? He thinks not, therefore he concludes that there must be something out there that has so much formal reality so as to be the cause of the idea of God. This something, according to Descartes, is God Himself:

"The more I consider these attributes [of God], the less it seems that they could have come from me alone. So I must conclude that God necessarily exists."

Descartes lists down several arguments to support his claim:

• Descartes himself is a finite substance, and finite substances cannot be the cause of the idea of something infinite, since the cause must have at least as much formal reality as the effect has subjective reality.
• Descartes' understanding of God must be prior to his understanding of himself, because he could not have understood his own imperfections without first understanding what perfection is.
• The idea of God has the greatest subjective reality of all ideas, by virtue of being the idea of something infinite. Although Descartes is unable to grasp the perfect nature of God directly, he is able to infer His existence through the act of grasping something clearly and distinctly.
• Descartes doesn't think that he has the potential to cause the idea of God. He is a finite and imperfect substance, therefore he cannot be the cause of the idea of something infinite and perfect. Even if the potential to cause the idea of God is within him, he disagrees that mere potentiality itself is sufficient to cause ideas.

Descartes concludes that God exists, and that He is the cause of the idea of God in his mind. Next, Descartes argues that his own existence is derived from God. He presents his argument through a process of elimination:

• Either Descartes is the cause of his own existence. He doesn't think so, because if this were the case, then he would have made himself perfect, which he is not.
• Either Descartes has always existed. He disagrees, because for this to be true, he must have the "power" to preserve himself in existence, and he doesn't find this power within himself.
• Either Descartes was caused by something less perfect than God. He disagrees, because the cause of something must have at least as much of itself in the effect, and since Descartes have within himself the idea of God, then it is impossible for him to be caused by something less perfect than God.
• Either Descartes was caused by his parents. If this were true, then Descartes would ask the following question: Who caused his parents? Unless there is an ultimate cause, then there will be an infinite regress of causes, which is impossible.

Is Descartes's argument complete? Could there be other possibilities that Descartes has not considered?

Finally, Descartes asks how did the idea of God come to be in his mind. It could not have come from the senses, the same way visual images of physical objects come to be in the mind. Nor could he have invented the idea of God, because he is unable to add or subtract anything from the idea of God. The only explanation, Descartes concludes, is that the idea of God must have been innate in him, like the idea of himself. Or rather, it must have been implanted in him by God Himself, which is fitting, since God created Descartes. The fact that the idea of God is present in Descartes' mind gives him some grounds for believing that God exists. Lastly, Descartes argues that God cannot be a deceiver, because deception is a form of imperfection, and God is perfect.

Circular argument: Descartes explains that cause of the idea of God must be God Himself, but then he uses the same idea to support his claim for the existence of God.

Meditation IV: On Truth and Falsity