Saturday, October 11, 2014
"A Supremely Perfect Being"
In Meditation V, Descartes presents his version of the ontological argument for God's existence. He argues that his argument ensures that "the existence of God ought to have for me at least the same degree of certainty that truths of mathematics had until now"(44). Is he right? Explain Descartes' argument in your own words and investigate whether it is successful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDescartes argues that the existence of God is a knowledge that is inherently within him, which means that—like math—it can be understood without sense perception. He founds his belief in the idea that there are certain things that have indisputable properties, even when their illusory form in the world outside the mind is taken away, such as a triangle: “For example, when I imagine a triangle, even if perhaps no such figure exists outside my thought anywhere in the world and never has, the triangle still has a certain determinate nature which I did not fabricate…it three angles are equal to two right angles, its longest side is opposite its largest angle, and so on” (43). Descartes includes God in this group of indisputable things as well, reasoning that he did not derive the idea of God from any external influences and that the idea of God, or some perfect being, is very real within his mind.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is a very flawed argument. Descartes may be correct in his mind that the concept of God exists in his own mind, but nevertheless this is a belief. There are many who do not believe in the existence of any supremely powerful being, and there are many who believe that there are several powerful beings, but assuming that perfection does not have several unique forms it would be true to say that these people do not hold the same concept of any supremely powerful being. Because the idea of a being with total control is not universal, it can be said that the idea of God was put into Descartes’s mind by external forces. However, the senses did not develop this concept in him, since God cannot be seen, heard, etc. If a thought that was not developed by the senses is not even inherent to the mind, than we can be certain that one that does have some basis in the senses like a triangle—even if we only see an illusion of a triangle, we developed our understanding of it out of this illusion—is also not inherent to the mind. Therefore, not only is Descartes incorrect in his assertion that the existence of God is a certainty, but it seems that he is incorrect in saying that the independent existence of anything—that is, without external influence or sense perceptions—is certain.
In Meditation 5, Descartes argues the existence of god through the analogy of shapes. He describes how God must exist because we perceive him in a distinct way and in specific qualities of existence. God would not be perceived as he is if he did not exist, we would not have a clear image of the idea of god if there was no real god. Descartes believes god exists because we can prove his existence just as we prove a mathematical problem. Although it is conceivable that god may exist, proving this is nowhere near the same as proving mathematics or science which are both studies that can have proof to back them up. We believe in God because we are trained and raised to believe in a certain image of him, mathematics and sciences are both studies that we can prove through experiments and the consensus of endless people. God is an idea that we have no way of ever proving to be true, this is not the case for mathematics, therefore we Descartes is not successful when relating the two to make the existence of God a justifiable thing. We are programmed to believe something works the way it does through a history of believing it is true. Mathematics and the existence of God are examples that would fall under this category. Despite this, we cannot put the two on the same playing field due to the obvious factor that is the proof that we have that mathematical advancements are indeed true. God’s existence is something we will never know the answer to, Mathematics and Science are existent in our world and can be applied to show their reliability.
ReplyDeleteOf the many ultimate goals in Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes’s ultimate goal of proving the existence of God is brought up more than any other. In Meditation V, Descartes presents his final, most definitive argument that he claims proves the existence of God. The argument is fairly simple, as Descartes first argues that God, as he is often depicted, is a “supremely perfect being” (44). As a result, since lacking existence is, according to Descartes, “lacking some perfection” (44), Descartes concludes that the very nature of God as being a perfect being means that he must, among other things, exist, or else, God cannot be perfect. However, this argument presumes the perfection of God, which cannot be proven without first proving that God exists, as, as Descartes himself would argue, no being can be perfect without first existing. Therefore, there are two possible interpretations of this argument, one accepting the perfect nature of God and one calling it into question, both of which expose inherent flaws in Descartes’s Ontological Argument.
ReplyDeleteIf Descartes’s position that God is a perfect being is to be accepted, it must be concluded that Descartes is therefore not analyzing the existence of the physical being of God, but rather the idea of God. The reason for this is simple – if we do not accept that God definitively exists, as must be done in order to prove that God exists, then we must look at something, related to God, that is most definitely perfect and most definitely exists. Fundamentally, this thing must be the idea of God held by Descartes, as, if Descartes is going to claim that God is a perfect being, simply because Descartes cannot imagine God without imagining that God is perfect, the only thing that Descartes can assume to be perfect is his idea of God. Granted, since the generally held perception of God, among those who believe in God, is the idea of God as a perfect being, we can accept the premise that the idea of God is, in fact, the idea of a perfect being. Applying this premise to Descartes’s argument, it becomes apparent that Descartes is merely proving the existence of the idea of God, as only this idea of God is inherently perfect, and thus definitively exists. However, since few (skeptics excluded) would argue that the idea of God is not an idea that exists, Descartes is likely looking for more definitive proof that God, not simply the idea of God, exists.
Therefore, it is necessary to look at Descartes’s argument as considering the being of God, not simply the idea of God. At that point, Descartes’s argument that God is perfect, which he claims to be a definitive, proven truth, capable of serving as the foundation for his proof of God, must be called into question. Descartes appears to anticipate that his argument regarding the perfection of God would be called into question, as he claims, “that earlier assertion [that God is perfect] need not have been made” (45). Essentially, Descartes is claiming that, much like the fact that the false thought that all four-sided figures can be inscribed in a circle entails the belief that a rhombus can be inscribed in a circle, the thought of God requires that Descartes “must of necessity ascribe all perfections to him” (45). Here, Descartes is essentially operating in a circle – because God is perfect, Descartes argues, the thought of God inherently requires the thought that God is perfect, and therefore, God is perfect. While this argument certainly works to prove that the idea of God is perfect, for the consideration of God requires the consideration of a perfect organism, Descartes is neglecting to prove that God, as a physical being, is inseparable from perfection. Therefore, as mentioned above, since existence is a prerequisite for perfection, not the other way around (otherwise, the perfect nature of the omnipotent Pegasus-unicorn would prove its existence), the Ontological Argument fails as proof of the existence of God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Meditation V, Descartes presents an interesting argument on the existence of God. He explains that the idea of God itself requires existence to be attached to it, much like a mountain must include a valley due to the nature of the mountain. He explains that since he “cannot think of God except as existing, it follows that existence is inseparable from God, and that for this reason he really exists”(67). Descartes says that God is a supremely perfect being with supreme perfection, and since perfection requires existence, God must exist; as he puts it, the idea of God requires that we “ascribe all perfections to him… when I realize that existence is a perfection, I rightly conclude that a first and supreme being exists”(67). Essentially what Descartes is trying to say is that the concept of God involves perfection. However, if something didn’t exist it wouldn’t be perfect, as existence is needed for perfection. As a result, Descartes concludes that unless God exists he isn’t perfect, and if he isn’t perfect then he isn’t God. So, in order for the idea of God (a being that has that perfection) to even exist, God himself must exist. Although I don’t necessarily believe that this argument is incorrect, I think that any argument that tries to ascribe human logic to an all-powerful, all-knowing God, stretches beyond the bounds in which its logic can work and is therefore essentially worthless. The God that Descartes describes is one that completely transcends everything human, and it would seem that a God with this kind of power could not be comprehended by the very limited mind of a human being. So, although there is no problem with this argument itself, I firmly believe that humans will never be able to truly understand the overwhelming nature of God and that any attempt to do so is in vain. If God exists, Descartes hasn’t truly proved that he does (even though it seems to our human minds like he has) because of the superior nature of God, and if God doesn’t exist then Descartes is wrong altogether; like I previously said, it seems in our minds like God must exist but he doesn’t necessarily because we as humans are not all knowing and cannot comprehend everything in the universe. However, if this argument against Descartes is to be disregarded, then in general his fifth meditation remains in fairly good shape. He explains that God is the only being to whom existence is intrinsic, and that nothing else necessarily exists. However, everything that does exist is only in existence because of God. This argument makes sense in the context of Descartes’ view of God, as an omniscient and omnipotent being would have to be the creator of all other beings. He also offers an interesting attack on polytheism, saying that “I cannot understand how there could be two or more Gods of this kind,”(68) the “kind” of Gods being omniscient and omnipotent ones. This makes sense because if there was more than one omnipotent God, then neither of them would be omnipotent as some of the power that makes up their “all-powerfulness” is held by the other god; this completely destroys the entire notion of complete power and then neither one of these beings is the type of God that Descartes describes. This can be explained through a short mind experiment; in a situation where two all-powerful Gods disagree, nothing can be accomplished. In this situation, God #1 cannot override the power of God #2, as God #2 is omniscient; however, God #1 is also omniscient, so he can override the power of anything. An obvious paradox arises, and the existence of multiple Cartesian Gods is blatantly impossible. Coming back to his original point (proving the existence of God) Descartes says that the existence of God is no less clear to him than the concepts of mathematics which constitute the entire universe, and that the universe and everything in it can only exist with one God that has to be there for anything at all to happen.
ReplyDeleteMeditation Five explores the existence of God in relation to geometry. Descartes begins the argument by saying that in order for something to have reality in the physical world there needs to exist something outside the physical that can give the thing its reality (41). He then goes on to say that since he has an idea of the perfection of God in his mind, that something must exist that has the perfection of God so that the idea might exist in his mind. Further he explains that certain things cannot exist because they are merely concepts, giving the example of hot and cold as immaterial concepts that can never be clearly understood. Finally, he says that he perceives the characteristics of God as clearly as he perceives the characteristics of a triangle, thus proving his objective existence.
ReplyDeleteThis is quite a flawed argument, as it gives no clear definition of perfection. This opens the characteristics of God up to interpretation, so much so that one might say that God has no characteristics because a particular individual cannot comprehend and idea of God clearly and distinctly. And if the perfection of God is so unfathomable, how can Descartes say that he perceives it clearly? Surely the scope of God’s greatness makes him so unreachable that he cannot truly exist in any conceivable way. Next, it might be worth it to note that Descartes asserts that there is one God with one set of characteristic, likening him to a triangle. However, it is also true that while a triangle has defining attributes, it can manifest itself in many different forms. This is where the notion of conflicting ideologies comes in: While there may be a set of characteristics that God possesses, those characteristics can manifest themselves in different ways. Some cultures embrace polytheism, while other individuals do not believe in any God.
In summary, the idea of a God who rules over things is easily conceivable; however, its existence is not because it depends on cultural and intellectual factors at a personal level.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile attempting to prove the existence of God, Descartes utilizes a logical thought process to establish a connection between thought and reality. He begins with his initial argument to prove that mountains must have valleys, asserting that since it is impossible to think of any mountain without a valley, then ALL mountains must have valleys; they are inseparable. Similarly, he argues that one cannot imagine God without existence, so God and existence are inseparable; God must exist. He tests his argument by making it more specific and concluding that "whenever [he]...think[s] of a being that is first and supreme...[he] …ascribe[s] all perfections to him...so that afterwards, when [he] realize[s] that existence is a perfection, [he] can ...conclude that a first and supreme being exists" (Descartes 45). In other words, since the supreme and first being is perfect (ie. possesses all perfections), and existence is a type of perfection, then a supreme a first being must exist. Since society refers to the supreme and first being as “God”, then God must exist.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that Descartes’ hours of dedication to obtain this argument was worthwhile; it is accurate in all respects. His primary argument that it is impossible to think of a mountain lacking a valley is accurate simply because the definition of a mountain requires that it have a valley; without a valley, the geographical formation would not be called a mountain by definition. So mountains MUST have valleys. Similarly, it is impossible to think of a triangle without three sides and three angles in a closed figure. If there are valleys, there must be a mountain; if there are three sides and angles in a closed figure, there must be a triangle. Likewise, if there is existence there must be God, which, if true, is as effective as the triangle argument above. It can be proven that existence and God are inseparable; we do know that a supreme and first being possesses all perfections, by definition, and if we can prove that existence is a type of perfection, then this supreme being cannot be thought of as not possessing existence, so He must exist. Well, 2+2=4 is a mathematically perfect argument, and also if you have two plates and put two more plates next to it, you end-up with 4 plates; 2+2 is not only perfect, but it also exists. Now 2+2=5 is mathematically imperfect, and likewise, I cannot add two objects to two other objects and end up with 5 of that object. This mathematical statement is not only imperfect, but also non-existent. So existence is a perfection, God possesses all perfections, so God must exist. Descartes was right.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn his ontological argument, Descartes tries to prove the existence of god by first using the premise that god is a supreme and perfect being. He then draws an important parallel between god’s perfection and the existence of mathematics. He claims that the idea that god is a supremely perfect being is “no less in” Descartes than the concepts of mathematics. From previous meditations, Descartes claims that the only way that someone could every gain an idea of god, is if god allowed that idea to be in that person. As a result, just like the mathematical concept of a triangle that has a concrete and inevitable definition in the mind of whoever defines it, God’s definition is inherently as concrete and inevitable as well. Finally, Descartes points out that existence and perfection are mutually inclusive allowing him to conclude that as long as god is perfect in all ways, which is the accepted first premise, it is necessary that he exists because existence is a form of perfection.
ReplyDeleteWhile convincing, it is necessary to note that Descartes’s argument doesn’t gain him much ground. He begins with the idea that god is perfect in every way and then concludes that god exists. Inevitably, in order for god to be perfect in any way, he must exist. Accordingly, the argument falls into a trap where it claims that god exists because god exists. Where Descartes assumed that he was gaining ground, he was just transforming the mental abstraction that god is perfect, into a real and manifest fact that god exists. In essence though, even with the transformation from thought to reality, Descartes is relying completely on his other proofs of God’s existence. The most relevant example is the proof where he claims that since we have an idea of God, God must exist because he is the only one powerful enough to put that idea in Descartes’s mind. Regardless of whether or not this is true, Descartes relies on another proof of God’s existence in order to prove that God exists rendering his ontological argument incredible useless. Still, the question remains whether or not his previous argument about God’s existence stands. Unfortunately, this argument falls because it doesn’t consider the great deceiver. His argument basically says, “An omnipotent being is the only being with enough reality to create an image of an omnipotent being in my mind.” There is nothing that prevents the “God” in his argument from existing as an omnipotent being that is designed to deceive from knowledge instead of assist towards it. So, not only is his new proof incredibly unsuccessful, he has still failed to prove the existence of a benevolent god.
To start his argument, Descartes explains why a triangle exists. Whenever Descartes thinks of a triangle, “its’ three angles are equal to two right angles,” and “its longest side is opposite its largest angle” (43). He states that whether or not he thinks about the relationship of the angles, when he imagines a triangle, it is always true. It is an inherent rule of a triangle because he does not have to will it to be true. The triangle still exists whether or not it exists outside of his mind. In the same way, when Descartes thinks of god, he thinks of a being without imperfections. Existence is a perfection, so therefore god must exist? Descartes does not believe that perfection causes the existence of god, so he continues his argument. Next, he compares the relationship between god and existence with a hill and a valley. Descartes does not believe that hills and valleys exist because he thinks about them, but he knows that one never exists without the other. Using that logic, he concludes that existence and god always exist with each other. Now, reexamining the point Descartes makes about the triangle, it is clear that since Descartes perceives god clearly in his mind, god must inherently exist. The difference between god and the triangle is that one inherent property of god is that he exists while the triangle does not have that inherent property. Therefore, while it isn’t guaranteed that the triangle exists outside of his mind, it has to be true that god exists. Descartes argument is very solid and it is very hard to dispute it. It is clear that he can clearly perceive god and that the concept of god exists.
ReplyDeleteDescartes makes the argument that God exists because Descartes believes whole-heartedly that God exists, which would not be possible if God was only a figment of his imagination. The problem with this argument is that there is nothing factual about his reasoning. Since Descartes has so much knowledge and insight of the world, it is difficult to understand why he would choose to believe that God exists even though he does not have any proof. I don’t think this is argument is accurate because we can prove that although we may think that something exists, it actually doesn’t in reality. I think that once someone is old enough to know how the world works, they should not believe in things that cannot be proven. For example, it is socially acceptable for a young child to believe in Santa Clause because he/she is not yet old enough to understand that it is impossible for Santa Clause and his reindeer to exist. However, for an adult to question whether or not Santa Clause exists is ludicrous because that person should know that since there is no solid proof of the existence of Santa Clause, Santa Clause does not exist. We have no more solid evidence in the existence of Santa Clause than we do in God. The only things we have to account to the realness of these two ideas are the stories that we have been told and these stories cannot be proven. Therefore, I don’t believe that Descartes argument about the existence of God is accurate.
ReplyDelete