# Descartes, Arguments, and God ## January 15th, 2020 - Pre-class scribblings: Trouble, trials, dreams That haunt me of such and Of such that horrify my haunts In and outside dreamland They pick the place of battle The time and killing-blow I pencil my refusal that They rubber-away, though I am assured my fate is mine By these that fall from me I suck upon the poison fruit Of my own sick tree And at the end - of all the ends - They, like friends, surround me - - "Okay, the 3rd meditation is HARD - we'll try and talk about it, and analyze it, and try to figure out if the argument makes sense" - Also, if you're confused about the text, come see me in office hours! I'm here to make sure you understand this stuff! If you want to talk for fun, too, that's great! - Also, you have a homework due next Wednesday - be prepared! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Okay, let's peek at the "Reconstructing Arguments" handout I just gave - *working backwards, the conclusion seems to be "Empiricism is false" from the given premises* - Here, we're trying to do the same thing to Descartes: figure out his argument, then analyze if his premises are correct! - "These tools are supposed to make it easier for us to reason about him, putting his arguments in words we can understand" - So, Descartes has destroyed his own beliefs to try and achieve certainty, and then build things back up from there - Again, Descartes isn't saying his own beliefs are false; he's saying it's *possible* they're wrong, and therefore aren't "knowledge" by his definition - Last week, Descartes concluded that just by saying "I doubt," he must exist! This is all he knows - an intense version of solipsism. Where'll he go from here? All he knows is that he's a thinking thing! - "Some people argue that Descartes has only shown that thinking is happening here, and not necessarily that he's the source of the thinking, but yeah" - How'll he build back up? By showing that God exists! - "This seems out of left field, but it's astonishing how well everything Descartes says fits together" - Why show this? To prove he's not being deceived; if God is all-good, he can't be a deceiver, and so he can trust his logic and his obvious senses! - First off, there are 2 terms Descartes uses we NEED to understand: - A perception is CLEAR if it represents what's essential to something's nature - A perception is DISTINCT if it doesn't represent something belonging to "X" that isn't part of the essence of "X" (e.g. the color "white" is not essential to being a cup) - Descartes thinks that, as a thinking being, he himself is a clear and distinct idea - Furthermore, he thinks that ALL clear and distinct ideas are true if God exists, since they're not confused with anything else - but he doesn't know if having such ideas is possible *unless* God exists to guarantee their truth - How does this work? It's complicated, but here's the gist: - If clear and distinct perceptions are *false,* then God (if he exists) is a deceiver - God exists (from the separate, formal argument) - What is this separate argument? Hold on, because it's tricky! - If God exists, he can't be a deceiver (the deception-defect argument) - Therefore, God exists and isn't a deceiver - Therefore, my clear and distinct perceptions are true - "For Descartes, God's goodness guarantees that he wouldn't give him faulty senses without some way of knowing they were false" - How does he prove #2 and #3? It's complicated, but I'll try and touch on it on Wednesday - However, there's a caveat in this argument: as part of his proof for the existence of God, Descartes *seems* to use God as a clear and distinct idea - but he's trying to prove those are true later on in this argument USING God! It seems he's using circular reasoning! - However, Descartes responded to this very objection in his later letters, and many people thinks there's a way out for him! - Okay, that's all for today - have a nice long weekend!