Rene Descartes Philosophy - Essay Example

In the Fifth Replies, Descartes writes, “I am surprised that you should say here ... that I distinctly know that I exist, but not that I know what I am or what my nature is” (71–2). Descartes seems to be insisting, contrary to his objectors, that the cogito conclusion, “I exist,” is inseparable from an understanding of the nature of self or mind as a thinking substance. Explain Descartes’ arguments in moving from the initial realization of the cogito conclusion to his claims about thinking substance, and then explain how good these arguments are in light of the criticism in the Objections or your own criticisms. Rene Descartes introduces a philosophy of consciousness and self-realization. He applies the art of doubt to solve problems and bring forth the existence of self. In the cogito, he reflects the possibilities and facts about consciousness. The initial statement of cogito reaffirms his belief in self-existence he says, “So after considering everything very thoughtfully, I must finally conclude that this preposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived by my mind” (17). In fuller conclusion the issues of doubt are brought up, he says, “under thought I embrace all that which is in us so that we are immediately aware of it, a thing which exists thinks is a thing which doubts, understands….” (21). These arguments by Descartes illustrate the need for self-assessment before making conclusions. A person (thinking being) is subject to doubt, hence must first be skeptic about everything in order to end up making informed judgment. Thus, anything that exists has properties, but must be subject to some skeptic before making an informed judgment and acknowledging its existence. For example, a person sees a bottle of water, and his eyes tell him that it is there. Since this person has the premise that what his eyes sees is in fact real (or existing) it means that he knows that the bottle exists. In a similar way, Descartes explains that man (I) exists because of some attributes like body, soul, and thoughts. He goes ahead to explain that ‘I’ denies, understands, doubts, affirms, is willing, is unwilling, has sensory perception and imagines (19). This shows that an existence comes hand in hand with knowledge of properties that something possesses. Existencewithout the knowledge of its properties is even more illogical than deriving a conclusion that the existence of self also encompasses the nature of self. When René Descartes says that he thinks, therefore, he exists, it means that he is aware of what he is and what his nature is. Otherwise, there is no existence. Every existence has its properties; be it divine authority like God or as trivial as a plastic water bottle. The objection of Descartes’s claimrests with the understanding of the proposition.If criticsaccept the premise when hesays that something exists, he also bases this by understanding someproperties. The philosopher has some understanding of the nature and properties of theobject. This existence theory can also be related to the existence of God. For instance, René has confirmed many times that he doesn't understand God. But he knows that He exists, it means he is aware of certain godlike properties. These properties include all good, all powerful, and all knowing. However, the fact that he acknowledges a lack of understanding about God reveals that God is more intellect than humans and has not made it possible to have such knowledge. No one has to know the chemical composition of plastic or water to know what the properties of water and plastic are. What Descartes puts across is that one needs not to have distinct perception of an object in order to prove its existence. Knowing particular properties is enough to comprehend the existence of something, which is contrary to the critics who propose clear and distinct perception of an object to be able to assess knowledge about it. However, the big question is what is the proof that they know everything about something? Be it Renée Plato Aristotle or Kant, every philosopher or any individual has to have some understanding of any existence to be able to function properly. They do acknowledge some parts of their lives in order to establish the others. It is not a matter of absolute proof that existence describes the nature of an object, it is a matter of having sufficient proof to establish what is unknown. Therefore, point of argument between Descartes and his objectors lies in the clear and distinct perception that gives knowledge about the properties of an object, and hence, make a decision on its existence. In order to come to a point of agreement, the two sides need to acknowledge certain grey areas, which incorporate both sides of the argument. Nevertheless, what holds is that, through some knowledge about the properties of something, it can be established that it exists, and, therefore, through the existence that a person exists there is also an acknowledgment of his properties and nature. The properties may present themselves in different forms under different circumstances, but these forms give evidence to the existence of an object. For example, Descartes explains the properties of wax when it has just been picked from honeycomb, and one that has been placed by fire (20). The two show a distinct difference in terms of properties, but what holds is that they are still wax, it does not change to another object. This perhaps explains why it is not possible to have distinct perception of something because one may perceive to understand something distinctively only to realize that the perceived properties are subject to change under given conditions. The mind is a reflective organ, which questions and reacts to everything, but not everything about it is supposed to be experienced to acknowledge its existence. The example of a triangle, which he explains that if a triangle is imagined in the head, it also raises questions as to why the person is thinking about the triangle, is just the tip of the iceberg. Renée says that through imagining the triangle he can explain other shapes that can be created out of the triangle. At least it gives some insight into other shapes. Does that mean that René has seen or experienced every other shape or simply he had sufficient information to establish other disciplines of shapes? It is simply having sufficient information to establish the knowledge about the shape, and thus, its existence. Descartes’s arguments play a very important role in the general realm of criticism. They depict a realistic formula of criticizing something and making good conclusion out of it. The logic of these arguments is irrefutable by any scholar. Hence, making a decision as to existence of something does not require absolute knowledge about its properties. Work cited Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. Ed. John Cottingham. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986. Print. "Full text of "The method, meditations and philosophy of Descartes. Translated from the original texts, with a new introductory essay, historical and critical by John Vietch and a special introd. by Frank Sewall"." Full text of "The method, meditations and philosophy of Descartes. Translated from the original texts, with a new introductory essay, historical and critical by John Vietch and a special introd. by Frank Sewall". N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2014. . Read More