Three Main Arguments in the First Meditation of Descartes - Assignment Example

Q Discuss the three main arguments in the First Meditation of Descartes. Explain how the three main arguments are related to each other and to thework as a whole. Ans. The first main argument raised by Descartes in his First Meditation encompasses his method of doubt. He says that he has been struck by several beliefs that he had thought to be true in his childhood and later discovered as false. He looked at this problem seriously and gives the instance of a basket of both good and bad apples. Some of the bad apples come to our notice and hence we end up removing them. On the other hand a few infected ones might have stayed back to infect the rest of the fruits in the basket. Thus he contemplates the best method would be to remove all the apples or empty the basket totally and then carefully put back the good ones only. The apples here refer to Descartes’ beliefs, which he dumps altogether. This act is similar to rejecting all apples. After giving up all his beliefs he carefully examines each one with doubts and finds that most of the beliefs, which will not undergo any stain during the process of scrutiny, will have certainty beyond any doubt possible. In the second argument, the issue centers on uncertainty. He moves on to prove the existence of ‘I’. As he translates his beliefs in words, he says, “I am, I exist”. The process of thinking may lead to doubt or some other cognitive acts; there cannot be any doubt that the thought process is happening. This also proves another point; he is at least sure that he is doubtful. Again, if he doubts then he must exist. This also originates from his statement “I think, I am”. There would not be any chance of being deceived or in doubts if he as not existing. The third argument leads to the existence of a non-deceiving god. The basic part of the argument centers on the kind of being he exists as. He first dotes on the concept of bodily existence since the feelings of pain originates from the body. However, since he has already proved that he thinks and is sure of the existence of a mind, which enables him to think, therefore he is confirmed for the moment that he exists at least as a mind. This is the only reality he faces. He moves on to discover, “ whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true”. This will help him to connect the knowledge about the material world. Again he is in doubt whether god is misleading him or not. Then he sets to argue about the existence of a non-deceiving god. All these above arguments form the core of his work. In his first meditation Descartes forms a belief almost at very turn and then sets to prove it wrong. This takes the form of a challenging game of philosophy. This follows from the first argument where he advises us to discard all the past beliefs and re-examine them under the lens of doubts. As he proves that he exists he takes the help of his method of doubt and states that his ability of doubting proves his existence. Now it occurs to him how he exists and since he has already proved that he thinks, he can easily say that he exists as a mind at least. Now, coming to think of the mind another doubt arises in his head, whether god is deceiving him or not. Hence it necessitates the discussion of epistemology and the proof of the existence of a non-deceiving god. Q2.) Discuss the various concepts of God found in Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. Explain how these concepts are employed by each within their overall argument. Ans. All the three philosophers deem god to be the ideal being that exists and rules the world including our thoughts and the various elements of nature. Descartes set out to discover a perfect definition of god who is perfect and hence non deceiving in nature. As he is convinced that he exists because he can think, he also conceives that God exists prior to his existence and hence god exists. He explains that the thoughts that strike him do so because God leads them to think that way. Hence god must exist before he does. The argument may be simplified further. All effects are originated from some cause. If the effects are real, so is the cause - at least to some extent. Descartes had an idea of God as a perfect and infinite being. He himself is an imperfect and finite being and hence he could not possibly be the source of the effect or the cause. This idea can be born only out of an infinite and perfect being and therefore God must exist. Again, he argues that existence itself is perfection. If he can have the idea of a perfect God, then existence is an essential property of God. This again points to the concept that God exists. Spinoza was born as a Jew but he changed his name from Bauch to Benedictus, which means, “Blessed” and conforms to the Christian law. He raises doubts about the immortality of the soul and the existence of angels. He was attacked and excommunicated from the Jewish community. His discussions about epistemology and metaphysics do not center on a sequence of dos and don’ts, which we normally term as ethics. Rather, he focuses on a way of thinking which shows us a way of looking at the world. This is turn show the way of acting and acting in the right manner can free us from human bondage. He says that we are too much tied up with physical objects and in the material world. Material love is bound to lead us to illusion, as all these will not last forever. He argues about the futility of such love as he has experienced by his own sufferings. He therefore set out to find that love which will singly affect the mind and help him enjoy a continuous process of never-ending happiness. While material love brings about anxiety and fear, the love, which is infinite, or the intellectual love for the eternal will always stay with him. He therefore searches for the object of such love and this can only be the logically necessary system of nature, which he identifies with God. It brings about a state of supreme blessedness or divine state of love. According to him, God only perceives the entire logical sequence of the system of things. Leibniz rejected the proposition of both Descartes and Spinoza as he thought that one led to the other and hence gave birth to atheism. His thoughts centered on the idea of reconciliation. He attempted to reconcile both the Protestant and Catholic schools of thought. Also according to the diplomat logic is the key. Just as a diplomat is adept at merging divergent points of views, he does the same while describing his philosophies. According to him God exists as someone who has created the universe as a harmonious system of nature in the language of mathematics. Leibniz also searches for a language that is logically perfect and this give us an insight into his methodology that is fascinating. He maintains here the traditional belief that God had the freedom and power to create the universe. As he tried to unfold the language that defined God, he went back to break up mathematics into more basic and elementary units especially the basic shapes of geometry. Here Spinoza argues that we can see all the details of the world around us as necessary and unchangeable, much like the theorems of geometry. Q 3. Discuss the statement: "Spinoza and Liebnitz both attempt to overcome the Cartesian dualism of mind and matter but in radically different ways." Be sure to explain what is meant by "the Cartesian dualism of mind and matter". Ans. Cartesian dualism of mind and matter refers to the ontological belief that the world is run by two distinctly different substances – mind and matter. While mind is private, matter is public. Only the self can access the mind while the public an access the matter. While matter is divisible the mind is not. Traditional beliefs thought this a process of achieving personal immortality. Descartes also bases his argument about dualistic interaction on this ground and says that he exists as a thinking identity. However he had used a relational property between knowledge and matter. However the distinction between the two things has to be essential. Both Spinoza and Leibniz try to link or connect the dual factors of the mind and the body but adopt two different approaches. Spinoza approaches the concept from a very simple and practical point, which perhaps has been experienced by every common person. He talks about the futility of material love, which finally leads us to experience grief and fear, that is, all negative feelings. Now these feelings generated by the material world affect the thinking process and hence the mind. He moves on to explain how intellectual love can benefit us in terms of relieving us from all these earthly experiences. Again, his theory states that God, an object of intellectual love, has created all the objects of nature around us. Now these objects will contain both mind and matter while God, an object of intellectual love, is associated with the mind only. Thus the Cartesian principle breaks down while mind and matter interact and work together. While Spinoza approaches the same theory from a human angle, Leibniz stresses more on the logical part and emphasizes upon the language of mathematics such that logical explanation could be provided. However, he also identifies God having the central power over the things around us. These elements of nature may not change without the will of God. He says that experience could be transformed from dispositional knowledge into explicit knowledge. Experience requires physical association and he identifies the mind as a transparent box with identifiable objects. Some of the experiences are perceived while some are not. He gives the example of the sound of the waterfalls, which is not realized as a distinct experience by someone who resides near the falls. Thus the physical location is related with the performance of the mind. This is one instance of the way Leibniz logically shows the futility of the Cartesian principle of dualism. His approach is more logical and theoretical. Also Leibtnitz merges the works of Descartes and Spinoza in explaining the principle of separation of the mind and matter and proving it to be invalid. Q4. Discuss Hobbes political theory, particularly the contract theory of government. Ans. Hobbes’ experience during the unsettled period of English history lead him to derive three basic conclusions. Wherever the government is unstable, chaos is bound to exist. Hence chaos has to be avoided at all costs. This can happen only if the governing body is strong enough. His political thoughts arise from these three major conclusions. He draws a thought experiment and imagines a society without government. How are the human entities going to function? He terms this as the ‘state of nature’ in which everyone has the right to the surroundings but unless the people are conditioned by a common bond or power they may not interact desirably and hence Aristotle’s idea of man as a social animal might not be true without a governing body. Thus he describes the state of nature as a state of fear. Altruism does not come naturally. Conditioning is essential. While natural laws may prevent some of the chaos, these laws are also based on our understanding of the reality around us. However these laws originate from amoral aspect of human nature and what certainty is there that the people would keep their promise of adhering to these laws. Hence a social body is essential and the people need to invest their powers and trust in one governing body or the government. Hobbes describes this body or the government as an artificial man. The social contract theory starts from here. We give up all our rights to one ruler. Hobbes does not quote any specific form of government. He does not reject the idea of an assembly. However division of power is something he does not contemplate since the civil war, according to him resulted from a division of power among the lords, king and the House of Commons. He also says that even a tyrant is better than the state of no government or an ineffective government. The contract is thus between the people and the sovereign where the people invest all their rights in the ruler and enjoy only those rights that are granted to them by the government. If people were allowed to decide about the laws, then anarchy would result and hence give rise to chaos. In the social contract a government logically cannot act justly or unjustly because all the laws ultimately originate from the government itself. Read More