Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy is a classic of western philosophy. Within its small number of pages, Rene Descartes attempts to provide a rational foundation for all human knowledge so that all knowledge might have the rigor and certainty of the mathematical sciences. While often Descartes’ individual arguments are quite complex in their own right, the Meditations as a whole represents Descartes’ attempt to unify knowledge, reality, and divinity into a coherent philosophical system. This systematic element to Descartes’ thought is often overlooked in favor of a focus on the individual arguments themselves; I feel, however, that it is the systematic character of Descartes’ work that account for the true greatness and significance of the work as a whole, even more so than Descartes’ claim to fame as the “Father of Modern Philosophy” and his purported break with the medieval philosophical/theological tradition. What follows is a conceptual outline of Descartes’ Meditation, illustrating how the various facets and individual arguments are fit together in one metaphysical and epistemological system.
Descartes’ Meditations:
1) Foundationalism
2) Rationalism
3) Radical Doubt
4) “Cogito ergo sum”
5) Mind/Body Dualism
6) Clear and Distinct Ideas
7) Arguments for God’s Existence
8) The Cartesian Circle
1. Foundationalism
Descartes states explicitly in the opening pages of his Meditations that he is seeking to provide a certain foundation for human knowledge, so that all knowledge might have the rigor that he finds in mathematics. This search for foundations has become known as “foundationalism.” Most philosophers today find this foundationalist project to be misguided due to the following problem: whenever one reaches a supposed foundation for belief, one can always ask the question about how one can be certain of the foundation. This in turn leads to a search for an ever more fundamental foundation, ad nauseum. This search for a certain foundation is ultimately what leads Descartes’ overall argument in the Meditations to be circular, as I will expand upon further in my discussion of The Cartesian Circle (point #8).
2. Rationalism
It is clear from the outset of the Meditations that Descartes’ approach is rationalistic. He is attempting to use human reason alone to develop a coherent philosophical system. It is the quest for certain knowledge using only the resources available to his own mind (free from empirical senses) that is the driving force behind the meditations. It is the view that knowledge comes primarily and foundationally from human reason alone that sets his approach apart from the empiricists who favor the view that knowledge comes primarily from our senses (e.g. John Locke, David Hume, et al.). It would be over-quick, however, state that Descartes views reason as the foundation for knowledge, since he himself holds that the omnibenevolence of God as the creator of our human minds is what allows us to be certain of the veracity of the products of human reason. Despite the ambiguity about whether human reason alone or theology is the true foundation in Descartes’ system, it is clear that Descartes favors a rationalist approach in building his philosophical system.
3. Radical Doubt
Descartes chooses to follow a method of radical, or hyperbolic, doubt. In the first Meditation, Descartes systematically tries to undermine any belief that fails to meet his criterion of certainty. In keeping with the tradition of the Meditations as a genre designed to draw in the reader to assent to one’s mindset, Descartes begins by introducing sources of doubt that we have all experienced to some degree. Ultimately he introduces a blanket source of doubt that can seem somewhat arbitrary (or perhaps artificial or ad hoc), but he draws the reader into this radical doubt gradually using familiar examples from normal human existence. Specifically he introduces three sources of skeptical doubts about the purported knowledge we possess. The first of these sources of doubt is the fact that our senses are sometimes deceptive. Since our senses deceive use at times, Descartes claims that one can never be assured (according to the standard of certainty) that his/her senses are accurate in their reflection of reality at any given time. Because of this lack of certainty about the information gathered via the senses, Descartes claims that empirical sense data cannot be the foundation for knowledge, as a true foundation would have the criterion of certainty.
The second source of doubt introduced by Descartes is what has come to be known as the “Dream Argument.” Descartes claims that there is no way to be sure that we are not dreaming, given that our dream life is filled with sense data (i.e. colors, sounds, images, smells, etc.) just as our waking life is filled with sense data. Descartes claims that dreaming is a normal feature of human experience and that he himself (as with most other people) has been deceived by his dreams into mistaking the dream for waking life. Given this apparent fluidity in moving from dream life to waking life, and vice versa, Descartes claims that there is no way to be certain that the “reality” we perceive in waking life is not merely a dream. This is clearly another jab at the attempt to use the senses as a foundation for knowledge, but the important feature of this example is that dreaming is a normal feature of human experience, so every reader should be able to feel the force of Descartes’ argument here, as in the deceptive senses above.
If the senses cannot be counted as a foundation for knowledge, Descartes next considers the possibility that abstract human reason be the foundation. This has a certain appeal due to the rigor and precision of disciples relying on abstract concepts, such as geometry and logic. However, Descartes is unsatisfied with this proposal for a foundation because of one additional source of doubt. While Descartes admits that this next hypothesis is somewhat artificial, he nonetheless considers it a true source of doubt that must be overcome later in the Meditations. He considers the possibility that God has a deceptive nature and that He purposefully created man with mental faculties that are designed to be mistaken rather than accurate. In proposing this “omnipotent deceiver” hypothesis, he is simultaneously trying to put himself in the worst possible epistemic situation (in keeping with his skeptical methodology) in order to discover if there is any certain knowledge that is able to overcome the most radical doubts and uncertainty imaginable. Descartes states that unless one can rule out the possibility of God’s being a deceiver, rather than an omni-benevolent perfect being, he will be unable to be certain of anything else. It is the attempt to overcome “Evil Genius” hypothesis that provides the motivation for his arguments attempting to prove God’s existence rationally in meditations three and five.
4. “Cogito ergo sum.”
“Cogito ergo sum.” literally translates to “I think, therefore I am,” which is perhaps the most well known phrase from Descartes’ Meditations. In looking for a piece of knowledge that is able to overcome the skeptical doubts raised above, Descartes hits upon the fact of his own existence as something he can be certain about despite the skeptical doubts he raises about the foundations of knowledge. In order to be contemplating these questions, Descartes realizes that he himself (in the first-person) must be existing. Even in the worst possible epistemic situation, i.e. the Evil Genius hypothesis, Descartes realizes that he himself must still exist in order to be deceived. Thus it seems that the mere fact of his own existence is something that is able to overcome any degree of skeptical worry, and is a piece of genuinely certain knowledge arrived at by the use of reason alone apart from the senses.
5. Mind/Body Dualism
After concluding that he can be certain of his own existence, Descartes asks the natural question about what kind of nature he has as an existing being. Due to the skeptical doubts he raises above, Descartes concludes that he cannot be identical to his body due to the fact that he is still doubting (at that point in the Meditations) whether he even has a body. Nonetheless he can be certain of his own existence. Looking back at his “I think, therefor I am” argument, Descartes observes that it was thought that allowed him to be certain of his own existence. He concludes that thought must be his essential property as an existing being, as opposed to embodied, physical substance whose essential property is that of extension (i.e. dimensionality). He concludes that he is essentially a “res cogitans,” a thinking thing, as opposes to a physical body which is a “res extensa,” an extended thing. Thus the mind and body have different essential properties, thought and extension; and so the mind and body must be distinct types of substances due to their possessing different essences.
Descartes also offers a second argument for mind/body dualism (i.e. the view that mind and body are distinct beings). The second argument has a similar form as the first argument insofar as it relies upon a difference in properties between mind and body. Descartes claims that extended bodies are inherently divisible due to the quantified nature of extension (i.e. one can always cut any length, no matter how small, into smaller segments). Unlike extended bodies, though, minds are not spatial beings and hence are not divisible as are physical bodies. Again, this means that mind and body have distinct properties and must therefore be distinct substances.
6.Clear and Distinct Ideas
In the third Meditation, Descartes reviews his argument thus far and examines how he was able to be certain of the conclusions he had already reached about his own existence as a “res cogitans” (i.e. a thinking thing). He concludes that it was a “clear and distinct” perception of those ideas that accounts for their being accepted as genuine knowledge. Descartes thus concludes that whatever his mind perceives clearly and distinctly is true. Descartes himself is somewhat vague about what it means for an idea to be clear and distinct, but one can get a good idea of what Descartes means from his method in the Meditations. Two features are essential to a clear and distinct idea. A clear and distinct idea must be free from the slightest doubt, and a clear and distinct idea must be free of logical contradiction. Whatever meets these criteria would be acceptable to Descartes as a clear and distinct idea and would count as genuine knowledge.
7. Arguments for God’s Existence
One Descartes reaches the conclusion that clear and distinct ideas are the hallmark of genuine knowledge, Descartes asks a question that is problematic for any form of foundationalism: how can one be certain that the foundation (in this case, clear and distinct ideas) is itself certain? Recall that in Meditation One Descartes raises the possibility that God might be an omnipotent deceiver who designed our mental faculties to work incorrectly and reach conclusions that are incorrect (although this would be unknown to us). Descartes argues that unless this basis for doubt can be removed, it will be impossible to prove the veracity of clear and distinct ideas. Descartes therefore proceeds to offer arguments designed to logically prove the existence of God and to show that God cannot by definition be a deceiver.
The first of Descartes’ arguments attempts to prove the existence of God by showing that we ourselves, as finite and imperfect beings, cannot have been the origin of the idea of God as an infinite and perfect being. Since we have no experience of these qualities (and lack these qualities ourselves), we as human beings cannot have brought about the idea of an infinite and perfect being. Were this the case, the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which claims that anything in existence must have a sufficient causal explanation, would be violated. What is perfect cannot arise from what is less than perfect, and what is infinite cannot arise from what is finite. Therefore if we genuinely comprehend the idea of God as an infinite and perfect being, it is only a being of that sort, who is infinite and perfect, who could have given rise to that idea within us.
The second of Descartes’ argument is a retelling of the Ontological Argument from St. Anselm of Canterbury. Descartes claims to have a clear and distinct idea of God as a perfect being. As such, one must ascribe all properties to that type of being that a most-perfect-being (i.e. an ens perfectissimum) would have. Descartes thus analyzes the concept of perfection, necessarily ascribing the resulting properties to the ens perfectissimum. Descartes considers the typical candidates for properties of a perfect divine being. For example, he argues that a perfect being would be omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, infinite, etc. Descartes then considers whether a being who has all these properties and existed would be more perfect than a being possessing these properties but lacking existence. Descartes finds it obvious (or, rather, clear and distinct) that a being possessing the quality of existence, in addition to the other perfections, would be the more perfect being. In other words, existence is part of the definition of perfection, and hence a perfect being, by definition, must exist. And since a perfect being would also be omni-benevolent, it is also impossible, by definition, for God to be an omnipotent deceiver. The Evil Genius hypothesis is finally overcome, removing the force of the skeptical worries of the first Meditation.
8. The Cartesian Circle
Descartes’ argument is often accused of being circular or of begging the question. Recall that Descartes uses clear and distinct ideas as the grounding for knowledge. But in order to be assured that his clear and distinct perceptions are accurate, Descartes must justify them with arguments designed to show that God exists and cannot be a deceiver. One might therefore say that his arguments for God’s existence provide the foundation for the veracity of clear and distinct ideas as a form of knowledge. However, Descartes’ arguments for God’s existence themselves make use of clear and distinct ideas of the nature of God (e.g. as an infinite and perfect being). Descartes is thus using clear and distinct ideas as the foundation of his arguments for God’s existence and omni-benevolence. This reciprocal relationship between God and clear and distinct ideas is clearly circular, and leaves unanswered the question of what counts as the true metaphysical and epistemological foundation in Descartes’ overall philosophical and theological system.
While one might reject Descartes’ arguments altogether as a result of this circularity, I would argue instead that Descartes has presented us with a profound and detailed analysis of the concepts of God, infinity, and perfection. True his argument may be circular, but it is exactly this circularity that allows Descartes’ prowess as a systematic thinker (rather than a thinker of linear arguments) to be evidenced. Descartes presents a metaphysical and epistemological system that attempts to capture all elements of reality, knowledge, and divinity into one coherent whole. By necessity, Descartes must enter into this system at a single starting point, after which his reasoning may seem linear and circular. But when looked at as a system as a whole, Descartes’ philosophy takes on a new level of coherence and elegance that captures the relationship between God as a perfect being, us as finite and imperfect beings, and the knowledge we as finite beings may possess.
