Thursday, October 1, 2015
A God Chasing His Tail?
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe Descartes is arguing in a circle and Arnauld is clearly correct. Descartes has two main premises to prove his argument. His argument, " rests on the fact that I recognize that it would be impossible for me to exist, being such a nature as I am (namely, having in me the idea of God), unless God did in fact exist" (35). One premise is that we distinct and clear ideas. The second premise is that there is a non-deceiving God. The problem is both premises depend on the other being true. Essentially it’s a question on whether the chicken or the egg came first and is true. There is no possible way to prove these premises because one is always dependent on the other. This ends up being an infinite loop because he will always defer to the other premise and not actually prove how either is true. I feel like Descartes actually did this to safeguard his argument from people trying to disprove it, however it collapsed on itself because it can’t be proven. Although Descartes tried his best to make his argument infallible, the end result of his failure to provide evidence that either exists without the other is to totally disregard the argument because the argument rests on one of these premises being true. The better alternative to Descartes' argument is to establish that one of the premises is true before stating the other one as a conclusion. Although this may lead to more clash and debate on how one the first premise is true, it guarantees him a clearly articulated argument that can be proven if defended correctly.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Arnauld's accusation is correct and Descartes is indeed arguing with circular reasoning. In order to prove that a non-deceiving God exists, he needs to demonstrate that humans can have clear and distinct ideas. However, the way he goes about arguing that we have our own clear and distinct ideas, he uses the premise of God's existence. He claims in his third meditation that he is "able to lay it down as a general rule that whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true." He builds on this premise by adding that the fact he is able to perceive things clearly is a sign of a non-deceiving God. Very clearly there is a gap of reasoning in between the perception of whether we are true thinking beings and the existence of God, since there is no hard evidence that proves that 100% of general rules are true, nor is there evidence that these rules even came from God at all.
ReplyDeleteThe real consequence of Descartes using this circular reasoning is that it invalidates his reasoning behind some of his other meditations in the book. For example, in the fifth meditation, Descartes claims that God exists based on the premises that a God is defined as an infinitely perfect being, and that perfection includes existence. How do we know that what you are perceiving as the definition of God is true? There are many examples of polytheistic pantheons composed of several gods, sometimes even hundreds, which have their own strengths and weaknesses. Due to Descartes's circular reasoning however, he feels no need to address the point, sort of in the same way people use the phrase "I'm entitled to my opinion" to back out of arguments in which they are either unsure of or think they are starting to lose.
After Descartes achieved the reasoning that he can be certain of his existence he decided that he would like to further pursue what he is able to know for certain. Thus, Descartes pursued the existence of god. Descartes then created what is now know as the Cartesian circle. Descartes argued that if everything we perceive is true then god exists and if god exists then everything we perceive must be true. Descartes thought that this adequately argued the existence of god. When word of such an argument reached the likes of people like Antoine Arnauld they realized the sophistry to which Descartes utilized. Descartes’ argument had been famously named the Cartesian circle as Descartes had founded a conclusion based upon circular reasoning. Descartes had formulated two premises that both rely upon the other to become true. Like a building that has no foundation and first floor Descartes’ conclusion had no base of reasoning to begin with just an infinite loop of undeniable yet incorrect reasoning. Descartes reputation had been tarnished with such an argument. It becomes obvious that impressive reasoning behind the Cogito had not been applied to the proving of god. Furthermore, the ignorant reasoning further leads to all other arguments provided in the book to become damaged through the simple association. It is undeniable that for any argument to become respected and considered that it must have a stationary and undeniable starting point to which one could build from. Descartes lacks this realization and pays the price for it by the likes of academic scholars like Antoine Arnauld.
ReplyDeleteOne of Descartes’s main arguments in Meditation 3 goes a little something like this:
ReplyDeleteI) If God exists and is no deceiver, then if I clearly and distinctively perceive X, then X must therefore be true.
II) I, myself, clearly and distinctively perceive God as not being an Evil Genius of sorts.
III) If I clearly and distinctively perceive X, then it follows that X must therefore be true.
IV) Therefore, God exists and is not a deceiver of sorts.
This very famous and heavily controversial argument is said to a "circle" by many philosophers. In fact, it gained so much infamy that it got its own name: The Cartesian Circle. The basic idea of the Cartesian Circle is when an argument uses a conclusion as one of the premises. For example, (from class):
I) Sally likes me.
II) Sally, because she likes me, said so and wouldn’t lie.
Well why wouldn't she lie? Oh, because Sally likes me. You can see the pretty evident circle in this case. Descartes is saying that he clearly and distinctively perceives something to be true because of God’s existence; therefore God must exist because he clearly and distinctively perceives him to be true. He says that, “I recognize that it would be impossible for me to exist, being of such a nature as I am, unless God did in fact exist” (52). So, in order for him to exist, God must exist, and in order for God to exist, he must distinctively perceive this to be true. Thus, in a way Arnauld is correct in saying that Descartes’s argument is circular. It seems that the premises are dependent upon one another, and there is really no indication posed by Descartes that proves God’s existence, as it is simply true to him because “everything he clearly and distinctively perceives to be true must be true.” The issue with this argument, aside from it being circular, is that his way of going about it is pretty weak. He hasn’t really proved anything, from God’s existence, to the fact that everything he clearly and distinctively perceives is true. In an objection to Descartes, saying that even the things in which we perceive seem so absolutely clear can turn out to be false, he says that if such judgments were to be false, “they could not be corrected by any clearer judgments or by means of any other natural faculty… Since God is the Supreme Being, he must also be supremely good and true, and it would therefore be a contradiction that anything should be created by him which positively tends towards falsehood.” So, even beyond the fact that his premises are dependent upon one another in a manner that makes it circular, his premises are lacking any justification, rather they seem to be claims with little-to-no proof. Our thought is not enough, and the assumption that God is perfect, or that he exists for that matter, cannot be addressed unless it is justified in some way or another. Thus, it becomes clear that some of the matters that Descartes bases his beliefs on contain flaws in themselves, and with the case of God’s existence, it seems that it is only travelling in a circle, and the content that makes up that travel is quite broad, and has little evidence or justification to strengthen it.
After believing he has disproved skepticism through the Cogito, Descartes begins to make general arguments about the existence of other beings, using his general rule as a basis for more knowledge. However, through Arnauld’s analysis, it becomes clear that Descartes is arguing in a circular manner. First, Descartes makes the argument that a non-deceiving God exists. He claims that in order to prove God exists, we need to prove that the premises are true. And, in order to prove that the premises are true, we need to prove the rule: that everything we clearly and distinctly perceive to be true is true. Lastly, in order to prove the rule, we need to prove a God exists. By laying out Descartes’ argument in this way, it is evident he argues in a circle. Essentially, the general rule only exists if a God exists. However, the existence of God is the basis of what Descartes is attempting to prove. If someone is known to be smart, then is everything that person says smart? The same circular, logical fallacy occurs here. Thus, this argument is problematic as it does not demonstrate a definitive proof that a non-deceiving God exists. Perhaps Descartes’ biggest issue is attempting to prove God’s actual existence. Is there any one way to be certain a celestial, omnipotent being exists without having a major fallacy within one’s argument? Because of Descartes’ major focus on God, which he warrants as valuable to his arguments as a whole, it becomes nearly impossible to prove any other form of knowledge humans might have.
ReplyDeleteArnauld is onto something when he says that Descartes is arguing in a circle. This is because his argument for the existence of clear and distinct ideas is dependent upon the existence of a non-deceiving god and vice-versa. Unless it stems from an independent and undeniable truth, any attempt to prove the existence of a thing is easily dismissible, as is the case here. Of course, this doesn’t mean that agreeing with Descartes theory that both clear and distinct ideas and a non-deceiving god are real is wrong, just that it may be misguided if one does so only because of this one flawed argument. More than it is flawed, it’s lazy. It’s an effort to kill two birds with one stone when doing so effectively is impossible. A better approach to arguing for the existence of these two things is to prove one of them completely differently, and then come back for the second. Say, through a completely different avenue, Descartes could manage to make the presence of a non-deceiving god inarguable. Once he’s done so, he could return to the idea of clear and distinct ideas and make their existence equally inarguable, as it follows that a god that can’t/doesn’t deceive wouldn’t allow for anyone to be mistaken or lack clarity. This is the hard way to go about this argument or any other as it requires the invention of an alternative proof for one of the two things, but it’s the right way, as it avoids the danger of the Cartesian circle, and can allow for two separate things to be argued for without worrying about the kind of mutual dependence that led to such fierce criticism of Descartes.
ReplyDelete