Skip to main content

REFLECTIONS ON DESCARTES REASONING PROCESS

    Having read through a number of Descartes works, I am struck by what seems to be a difficulty in his reasoning process. Roughly put his reasoning goes something as follows (please note this is in summary form):

1.    Knowledge (science or Truth) is that which is indubitable, being clearly and distinctly perceived.

2.     If knowledge is defined as in premise one, then in order to discover truth one simply doubt all that is not indubitable, which is not clearly and distinctly perceived.

3.     We can doubt all that we thought we knew, except for one thing, that we are doubting.

4.     I doubt, and therefore I exist. (Or in his more famous phrase, I think, therefore I am – Cogito ergo sum)

5.     That “I think” is the clearest and most distinct truth I can know.

6.      I am aware of imperfections.

7.      The fact that I am aware of imperfections seems to necessitate that I have an idea of perfection.

8.      This idea of perfection can only come from (a) my own mind, (b) the world that my senses appear to perceive, or (c) from a source that is higher than me.

9.      Options (a) and (b) are not possible, because they are the source of imperfection.

10.  Therefore my idea of perfection is put in my mind by a higher being.

11.  Due to the principles of causality (see The Principles of Philosophy, principle XVIII) this higher being must itself be perfect in every way.

12.  Existence (this is presupposed) is a perfection, therefore this being must, necessarily, exist.

13.  Therefore, God exists.

14.  As perfect, God must also, necessarily, be absolute truth.

15.  As absolute truth he could not, in any way, deceive me, make me such that I would always deceive myself, or be the cause of the errors that I perceive in my sense and thoughts.

16.  Therefore, whatever I perceive clearly and distinctly is true.

17.  Therefore premises 4 – 15 are necessarily true (because they are clear and distinct ideas, or deduced necessarily from clear and distinct ideas).

This is a rough draft, summarized, and not worked out so as to ensure its logical perfection. It is a summary of Descartes reasoning process. The main points are there. The problem that I see in it is two-fold: (1) What about the definition of knowledge as that which is indubitable, being clearly and distinctly perceived? Is this definition itself indubitable, being clearly and distinctly perceived? (2) What about the methodical doubt, is it clear and distinct, that this method is, without a doubt, necessary for discovering truth? If the answer to either of the above questions is “No!”, then, or so it seems to me, Descartes whole system is fallacious. [1]


[1]I am aware that this critique of Descartes may be found elsewhere, however, these are my humble reflections after having read through Descartes Rules for Direction, Discourse on Method, Meditations on First Philosophy, and part of his Principles of Philosophy. I am open to correction, and if anyone has read a similar critique in a book I would appreciate a reference.

Popular posts from this blog

How Kant’s Synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism resulted in Agnosticism

Immanuel Kant, presented with the extreme empiricism of Hume and the extreme rationalism of Liebniz, which he discovered through the writings Wolff, sought to take a middle road between these two extreme philosophical positions. I would submit that Kant’s synthesis of these two views leads to an agnosticism about what Kant called “the thing-in-itself”, and ultimately to the philosophical positions known as Atheism, determinism, and nihilism.


Kant’s Sources
First of all, Kant was influenced by Hume’s empiricism and Newton’s physics. He saw that the physical sciences, in contrast to rationalistic metaphysics, were actually making advances. They were making discoveries, and building a system of knowledge that accurately described the world of our sense perceptions. Rationalistic metaphysics, on the other hand, was floundering amidst the combating systems that the philosophers were erecting. It did not provide new knowledge, and only led to unacceptable conclusions, such as the Absolute Mon…

A Short outline of Charles Taylor's: The Malaise of Modernity

CHARLES TAYLOR’S THE MALAISE OF MODERNITY[1]
            This is simply an outline of Taylor’s basic argument in this short work written by Charles Taylor. The idea of this outline is to help the reader understand the book by providing a simple outline of the basic argument that Taylor is presenting here. The book, which is essentially the manuscript is the fruit of a series of presentations that Taylor made at the Massey Conferences which are hosted by Massey College and Radio-Canada, is divided into 10 chapters. In the first chapter Taylor essentially proposes three causes (recognizing that there may be more) of the Malaise of Modernity: (1) Individualism or the Loss of Sense, (2) The Primacy of Instrumental Reason or the Loss of Ends, and (3) The effect on society and politics in general of the loss of sense to an inauthentic individualism and the domination of instrumental reason, or, the loss of true freedom. Taylor considers the first Malaise in chapters 2 to 8, the second in c…

LEISURE: THE BASIS OF CULTURE – A BOOK REVIEW

Leisure: The Basis of Culture & the Philosophical Act. Josef Pieper. Translated by Alexander Dru. 1963. Reprint, Ignatius Press, 2009. 143 pp. $12.99. ISBN 978-1-58617-256-5.
            This book is composed of two articles written by the German philosopher Josef Pieper. Though the two articles are intimately connected, they form two distinct works; as such, this book review will begin by giving a brief introduction to the works in question, followed by and exposition of each of the works individually. The two articles that are included in this book, Leisure: the Basis of Culture and The Philosophical Act, were both published in 1947, and, as such, were written during the cultural crisis in Germany that followed the Second World War. Not only did Pieper have the cultural crisis in mind when he wrote these articles, but he was also writing in light of the works of the most well-known German philosopher of the time – Martin Heidegger. As such, any reader who is familiar with Heidegg…