Antoine Arnauld (among others) famously accuses Descartes of arguing in a circle: the principle of clear and distinct ideas requires a non-deceiving God to validate it, but the proof of a non-deceiving God requires the principle of clear and distinct ideas. Is Arnauld correct? If not, why not? If not, at what cost?
I think Antoine Arnauld is correct in that Descartes argues in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything. Descartes' argument that anything we clearly and distinctly perceive is real needs God to be true because God would make it impossible for us to be deceived according to Descartes. However, I am still not convinced that the presence of God means we are not deceived because a greater evil genius or demon could potentially deceive us into believing God exists to make us think we are not being deceived. Even if God's existence allows us to clearly and distinctly perceive things and therefore have knowledge, we need that knowledge to prove that God exists. Descartes tries to get out of this circle, but I do not think he was successful. Descartes tries to argue that God only lets us remember what we clearly and distinctly perceive. This argument theoretically would let him out of the circle by being able to clearly and distinctly perceive things and therefore have knowledge and be able to prove God's existence. However, the argument still feels like a circle in that it either we do not need God to clearly and distinctly perceive things,(and God only lets us remember these perceptions), but that lets us be deceived and therefore not know anything or we need God to clearly and distinctly perceive things and that puts us back in the circle. The question then is do we have knowledge or not, and maybe there is a way to clearly and distinctly perceive and therefore have knowledge without God, but according to Descartes, our road to knowledge is a circle that never ends.
ReplyDeleteI think Arnauld is correct about Descartes arguing in a circle. As we explored in class, there are several instances in which Descartes bases his arguments on premises he hasn't yet proved and will only prove using arguments for which the previous arguments are required. The only way these circular arguments could gain validity would be if, at some point in the circle, a premise could have an alternate proof. For example, in Descartes' argument for clear and distinct perception, he heavily relies on the existence of God and later argues for the existence of God using clear and distinct perception. One way he could prove both of these arguments true would be to find a different, valid way to prove God's existence. To accept that Descartes argues in a circle means that many of the claims he makes in Meditations lose their foundations and with them, their validity. Until one or more premises of his circles is proven to be true, Descartes' meditations might remain as nothing more than possible paths of logic.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to entertain the idea that Descartes does not argue in circles, it would come at a particular cost. The main downside to Arnauld's observation, even if it does not account for all of the pieces of Descartes' arguments is that the apparent circular nature of his proofs can discredit his conclusions for some readers. This potentially could be an interesting instance of when opinion and philosophy become intertwined. Some might think Descartes' circular logic is coherent and is believable, whereas some might find it to be nonsensical and that it draws conclusions from thin air.
I would have to agree with Antoine Arnauld here, and Descartes' reasoning really gives me no other choice. There are two major pieces to this argument here: 1. the belief that an all-powerful, perfect, and good God exists 2. the supposition that if I very clearly and distinctly perceive something, it is true. The idea of "clearly and distinctly perceiving" something is and of itself vague, but that's besides the point. To know that what he clearly and distinctly perceives is true, Descartes must also be certain that there exists no evil deceiver out in the world whose sole purpose is to mess with Descartes. How can he ensure that this deceiver does not exist? Well, an all-powerful, good God would not allow such a deceiver to exist. Now, we can assert that the 2nd piece of Descartes' argument relies on the 1st. Descartes uses his rule to justify God's existence: because he can clearly and distinctly perceive God, Descartes knows God must exist. Therefore, the 1st piece of Descartes' argument relies on the second. The result: a true fiasco. Descartes has failed any foundational aspect in this argument: neither of his suppositions can stand on their own as independent, fundamental beliefs. Now, some may argue that the veracity of Descartes' golden rule (clearly and distinctly perceiving) exists independent of whether God exists. However, if this were to be true, then an evil deceiver must also exist because as we have seen time and time again, Descartes can most definitely clearly and distinctly perceive an evil deceiver (he brings up the concept numerous times). No matter what route Descartes takes, both pieces of his argument inherently end up relying on each other. Before digging himself into an even deeper hole, it would be wise of Descartes to go back to square one and see what he can logically deduce from the Cogito (key word being logically).
ReplyDeleteArnauld is correct about the circularity of Descartes’s argument for the existence of God. Descartes argues that everything he perceives clearly and distinctly is true or real because God, who is perfect, would never allow him to be deceived. There could never be an evil deceiver like the one that Descartes posits in his dreaming argument because the existence of one would show an imperfection in God. Since God is perfect, he would allow no such deceiver to exist, and thus, Descartes can never be deceived. However, Descartes must then prove God’s existence, and he simply argues that he perceives God clearly and distinctly to do so. God needs to exist for him to know anything clearly and distinctly, but he only knows that God exists because he perceives him clearly and distinctly. This is certainly a circular argument. The first point is proven by the second point, but the second point is proven only by the first point. There is no way to truly prove that either of the two points are true without going in this circle, at least not in Descartes’s argument. Descartes would need a premise that is not derived from any of these two points and also proves one of these two points in order to get anywhere with this argument for God’s existence. In fact, since Descartes cannot prove that God exists, he cannot even prove that he exists, even though he already did in the second meditation, because Descartes argues that the things he perceives clearly and distinctly are only true or real because God exists. This is a point raised by Arnauld. So, this circular argument actually takes Descartes backwards in his attempt to build a foundation of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDescartes argument is like a donut: it looks really good, but it just goes round and round in circles and has a massive hole in the middle. Arnauld is indeed correct that Descartes argument of foundationalism doesn't actually have a foundation. If he clearly and distinctly perceives something, then it is true. In order to clearly and distinctly perceive something, then a perfect god must exists to ensure a deceptive demon god doesn't exists. Descartes knows a god exists, because he clearly perceives god. And then it goes round and round, with each point justifying the other, which is justified by the original, and so on. Harsha also brings up a really great point: since Descartes perceives a evil god, then under his logic, it must also be true. This means his argument is self-defeating, as it cannot be true without also proving itself false. Further, if an atheists clearly and distinctly perceives there to be no god, then that must also be true. Especially if they justify their atheism through the Cogito (I think therefore I am). Descartes' response to atheism is quite frankly terrible, in that is simply lacks warrants and he just claims that "atheist don't have true knowledge". One way Descartes can escape this circle is by using a different method to justify any one of his two claims. If he can do so, then his argument will finally have a foundation, and the cartesian circle will be destroyed. However, before he does that, his argument is inherently circular and cannot be bought as a legitimate response to skepticism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Antoine Arnold in that Descartes argues in a circular manner. Descartes comes up with a 'general rule' that everything he clearly and distinctly perceives (conceives) is true. He then tries to justify this rule by stating that a good god exists and that he is a perfect God, therefore Descartes cannot be deceived. He tries to prove this statement by saying that since God exists, there cannot be an evil genius god that is trying to deceive him because if there was a good god, he wouldn't let the evil genius god exist, as that would be an imperfection. What he doesn't see here is that there could be an evil genius god letting him think those thoughts so that he isn't suspicious that he is actually being deceived. This situation would be similar to the Matrix with the people living within a false world, but they aren't aware of it and there aren't things that let them know that they are being deceived. Descartes then proves the existence of god by using the general rule and stating that he perceives (conceives) God, so a good and perfect God exists. This is the circle as Descartes' general rule is 'proved' by the existence of a good God, which is then proven by the general rule. Arnold is right when he states that Descartes' argument is circular. However if Arnold is incorrect and Descartes' argument somehow supports itself without being circular, then I believe that Descartes would have found the foundational belief that he was looking for. From there, Descartes would be able to prove that God exists and that he has some knowledge. But since this isn't possible as he hasn't gotten himself out of the Cartesian circle, he can't use this method to prove his 'general rule' or that God, good or bad, exists.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Antoine Arnauld (among others) is correct in arguing that Descartes argues in a circle, meaning that the conclusion of his argument depends on the premises of the argument, but the premises of his arguments also depend on the conclusion: In other words, Descartes’ arguments are impossible to prove in the way that he intends to prove them. In many of his arguments, he bases the conclusions off of premises that are not proven, and this is how he digs himself into a hole. He would need to find a way to prove these premises true in another way that does not rely on the conclusion, in order to make his beliefs more trustworthy. For example, I think that Descartes brings up a very interesting point when he concludes that a non-deceiving God exists as long as clear and distinct ideas exist, and if he could just find a way to prove one of these things to be true in a different way than he does, he would be very credible and have a very sound argument. Perhaps he could have considered the Cogito to prove that ideas exist, and then go from there. Even though Antoine Arnauld is correct in my eyes, I think that this comes at the cost of discrediting the work and beliefs of a great Philosopher and his principles. So, I think it is important to continue to prove his thoughts true in a different way in order to correct his mistakes, but keep his thoughts alive.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Arnold is correct. Descartes is stating that if he very clearly and distinctly perceives it is true. However, to prove this idea he needs to prove that there is no deceptive God that exists. To prove that no deceptive God exists, Descartes must prove that God exists, but to prove God's existence, Descartes needs to prove that what he clearly and distinctly perceives is true. This endless loop of connections is why Arnauld is accusing Descartes of an invalid circular argument. It is undeniable that the argument presented is in a circular loop, where the premises depend on one another. By definition, a circle argument is an argument that is unable to be called true or accurate until the starting premise is proven to be so. But, the catch is that the original claim cannot be proven without first proving the claims that depend on the claim in which the reader/philosopher is starting. I think that Descartes's God existence argument fits this description to a tee and is therefore impossible to prove. This inclusivity results in problems with the rest of Descarte's ideas surrounding skepticism. The rest of his claims in the book depend on the fact that God exists, but I do not feel like he proved God's existence at all. Stating that what we perceive is accurate because God is perfect and does not deceive is problematic. Simply saying that I can accurately perceive does not mean that I perceive accurately as a result of God. Perhaps I perceive correctly because my body is functioned to do so and therefore acts accordingly. Then the counter would be that God created the body, but did he? I think that it is nearly impossible to prove the existence of God, maybe the potential to prove the existence of some external being. I find it difficult because today the scientific world is much greater, more accurate, and the information is better communicated, and I believe that the ideas of evolution and various scientifical reasons for existence tend to go against the idea of God. There is also the argument I regularly heard in PSR (Bible studies) when I would question the existence of God, that stated evolution existed, but that change and start had to start from somewhere/someone and that is God. It is a very interesting argument to explore, but aside from that idea, with Descartes in mind, I find his argument that proposes the existence of God to be faulty and flawed.
ReplyDeleteThe primary flaw in Descartes' argument is that he bases his evidence of his premise on the premise itself. He claims that if he observes something to be true clearly and distinctly, it must be true. To do so, he must demonstrate that G-d exists, which he attempts to do by claiming that he clearly and distinctly perceives it to be true. His argument for his perception of truth is based on the argument that G-d exists and that G-d is perfect, which is in turn based on his argument for perception of truth, and so forth the circle continues. Arnauld is clearly correct in accusing Descartes of creating a circle of arguments, because they all depend on each other. As a result of this circle, all of Descartes' remaining arguments that rely on proof of G-d's existence appear to be invalid – if G-d's existence cannot be established, then the arguments have no base. Another issue with Descartes' circle of arguments is that even if G-d can be proven to exist, how could one prove G-d is not a deceiver? Descartes depends on the notion that a good god must exist in order for an evil god to exist, and that a good god would not allow an evil god to exist since it would be flawed. Descartes is caught up in his circle of arguments once more. To argue that an evil god does not exist, he assumes that a good god must. The problem is that if there is no good god, the evil god could deceive in any way. And in that instance, perceptions might be distorted, and one couldn't rely on the general rule to reach a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Antoine Arnauld here and believe that many of Descartes arguments contradict one another and overall prove nothing. Many of his arguments can be thought of as a circle, going around and needed each other to be true in order for the concept to be proven true. It constantly goes around and never reaches an end. One of his argument is that if you can very clearly and distinctly perceive an idea or concept then it must be true. However, there cannot be an evil deceptive god that exists because then those ideas would be true. Our mind is unable to perceive everything correctly since we are human so that means an infinite mind has to exist or god has to exist. However in order to prove that non-deceptive gods exists then a good perfect god exist in its place and for that to be true, you must be able to perceive them clearly and distinctly. This argument goes back and forth, as it needs components from both sides to prove it to be true, so it’s going in a circle, and never actually comes to a conclusion. Many of his arguments have that similar circle aspect and never really prove anything. One of them being that in order to have knowledge you have to be able to clearly and distinctly perceive things, and in order to prove that you have to prove that god exists. A good god has to exist otherwise you wouldn’t be able to clearly and distinctly perceive anything. To prove that we need to prove a clear and distinct rule exists. If he could get out of this circle and prove each point in a linear way that does not contradict itself, then he would be much better at proving his points.
ReplyDelete