Descartes Paper
Samika Visweswaran
T.A-Rory Harder
PHL100Y1-Y-TUT1001 Intro to Philosophy
Circular Argument
Descartes establishes that in order to know what in fact exists, one must first take everything off the table and then see what can be put back. The conclusion is that in order to be certain that one is a thinking thing; one must know what it takes to be certain. “All those things I perceive very clearly and very distinctly are true”(Pg. 53). This general rule however, requires that all doubt must be removed. This can only be done if God both exists and is not a deceiver. Descartes then breaks substances down into those that have objective reality and those with formal reality. It is clear that the idea of God must have more objective reality than formal reality. However, the idea itself is so great that Descartes believes that he could not have come up with it by himself. Since he himself is a finite substance, it is assumed that something infinite would be the only thing that could envision the idea of the infinite in the first place. Therefore, God must exist and cannot be a deceiver because he would not allow Descartes to not be able to clearly and distinctly perceive. This argument then rests on Descartes proof of the existence of God, which can only be erroneous if Descartes clarity and distinctness rule is incorrect. Since the argument of God is used for the validation of the clarity and distinctness rule, and the rule itself implicitly must prove that God exists, the Cartesian circle is created. For an argument to be circular, one of the premises must be reliant upon the conclusion for its truth. If you touch on one argument, you touch on both. There are a few ways out of the circle.
One way would be to look at the argument in a different light. In that, Descartes is only claiming that if God exists, then our clarity and distinctness rule is correct. He is not claiming that the rule provides a justification for God’s existence. “ The entire force of my
T.A-Rory Harder
PHL100Y1-Y-TUT1001 Intro to Philosophy
Circular Argument
Descartes establishes that in order to know what in fact exists, one must first take everything off the table and then see what can be put back. The conclusion is that in order to be certain that one is a thinking thing; one must know what it takes to be certain. “All those things I perceive very clearly and very distinctly are true”(Pg. 53). This general rule however, requires that all doubt must be removed. This can only be done if God both exists and is not a deceiver. Descartes then breaks substances down into those that have objective reality and those with formal reality. It is clear that the idea of God must have more objective reality than formal reality. However, the idea itself is so great that Descartes believes that he could not have come up with it by himself. Since he himself is a finite substance, it is assumed that something infinite would be the only thing that could envision the idea of the infinite in the first place. Therefore, God must exist and cannot be a deceiver because he would not allow Descartes to not be able to clearly and distinctly perceive. This argument then rests on Descartes proof of the existence of God, which can only be erroneous if Descartes clarity and distinctness rule is incorrect. Since the argument of God is used for the validation of the clarity and distinctness rule, and the rule itself implicitly must prove that God exists, the Cartesian circle is created. For an argument to be circular, one of the premises must be reliant upon the conclusion for its truth. If you touch on one argument, you touch on both. There are a few ways out of the circle.
One way would be to look at the argument in a different light. In that, Descartes is only claiming that if God exists, then our clarity and distinctness rule is correct. He is not claiming that the rule provides a justification for God’s existence. “ The entire force of my