The Fifth Replies of Descartes - Essay Example

Essay-Philosophy 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. The argument in question is the argument of Discourse. The problem with this counter argument is the inherent bias. There is a premise and theres a conclusion if one accepts the premise the conclusion must be accepted. Renée Descartes says that he knows he exists it is inherent that he knows what he is and what his nature is, it is the very definition of establishing his existence. This knowledge (of existing) cannot be separated from the knowledge of what that existence is about. This point can be elaborated through an example for instance one sees a bottle of water. His eyes tell him that it is there. Since this person has the premise that what his eyes see is in fact real (or existing) it means that he knows that the bottle exists. When he say that it exists it means it has certain properties that indicate that it exists. No one can say that something exists without acknowledging the properties. Existence without the knowledge of its properties is even more illogical than deriving a conclusion that existence of self also encompasses the nature of self. When René Descartes say 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 claim rests with the understanding of premise. If the critics accept the premise when Renée says that something exists, he also bases this by understanding some properties. The philosopher has some understanding of the nature and properties of the object. This existence theory can also be related to the existence of God. For instance René has confirmed many times that he doesnt understand God. But he knows that he exists, it means he is aware of certain godlike properties. No one has to have full understanding of something to know that it exists. No one has to know the chemical composition of plastic or water to know what the properties of water and plastic are. The whole debate can be summed up in one sentence that size beats all. No one can fully comprehend everything. If someone said that they have clear and distinct knowledge about something then what is the proof that they know everything about something? This is the question that can be posed back to the objectors. 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 it is a matter of having sufficient proof to establish what is unknown. “…it enables the mind to distinguish without difficulty what belongs to itself that is to an intellectual nature” (Descartes 9) The point of difference between the two arguments is that the clear and distinct knowledge which fully comprehends something exists or not. If they both (both school of thought) agreed that they cannot fully comprehend something then they have to confirm to certain gray areas which incorporate both sides of the argument. 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 its properties and nature. Everyone agrees that human mind, its comprehension and understanding, all have limitations. Size beats all in the end. Whether its too big like the infinity of the universe or too small like quarks in an atom. Let alone the concept of self or of God. “…for it is in the nature of the infinite not to be grasped by a finite being like myself” (Descartes 32) Renée writes in his book that “many irreligious people are unwilling to believe that God exists and that the human mind is distinct from the body is that a legend fact that that no one hitherto has been able to demonstrate these points. Now, I completely disagree with this …” (Descartes 4) Renées example of a triangle also helps in explaining this phenomenon. If a triangle is imagined in the head, it also raises many questions as to why the person is thinking about the triangle. If everything in a persons control or there are things that are sent by the divine or simply the fate. The objections from the critics as to how a person can explain the nature and the properties by merely acknowledging the existence of something can also be countered with the argument that everything cannot be established absolutely through demonstration or experience. The mind is a reflective organ it questions everything, it reacts to everything, and not everything is supposed to be experienced to acknowledge its existence, nature or properties. The example of a 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? The answer is definitely the latter; there is sufficient information to establish the truth just as the sufficient information on existence can be used to establish the nature and the properties of that existence. The whole argument can be summed up in a few words that any rational person needs some amount of information or data to establish the rest of the truth. Researchers do not ask each and every person or examine each item in a sample of thousands to see what the rest of the set will behave like. This is why it is called sample testing. It is similar to the case in question that René absolutely knows that he exists therefore he also understands what he is and what his nature is. Reference Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. Ed. John Cottingham. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986. Print. Read More