Tuesday, October 8, 2019
God Chasing His Tail
Antoine Arnauld (among others) famously accuses Descartes of arguing in a circle: the principle of clear and distinct ideas requires a non-deceiving God to validate it, but the proof of a non-deceiving God requires the principle of clear and distinct ideas. Is Arnauld correct? If not, why not? If not, at what cost?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Descartes believes the only way to confirm a distinct idea would be to ensure there is no deception involved. However, the only way to ensure there is no deception is to have distinct ideas. This belief is known as Descartes’ ‘Cartesian Circle’. Descartes believes in the possibility of a God, or higher being, that deceives each of us in nearly every way. However, Descartes argues there are three absolute ideas that are unarguable and true. Thyself, a higher being, and mathematics are absolutes that cannot be argued or proven otherwise. Any thought or idea outside of the three absolutes is questionable. It is known there is a higher being who created thyself and the entire world, but what if God created our surroundings differently than we think? What if the tablet the reader is reading this from is not a tablet at all, yet it is what we think it to be. Descartes argues that anything other than the three absolutes can be questioned, and therefore not true. To prove that our creator is deceiving us, it is necessary to have clear and distinct ideas, but the distinct ideas must not be arguable or doubted. Arnauld is correct when claiming Descartes’ arguments become an endless cycle. If nearly everything, except the three absolutes, is arguable, how can someone be satisfied with life? If I can be sure of only myself, what might the reasoning be? Arnauld’s beliefs are understandable, but Descartes’ skepticism remains in the same loop of questioning.
ReplyDeleteAntoine Arnauld is correct in criticizing Descartes for his circular arguments. Descartes' points proving God's existence where
ReplyDelete1. God is a supremely perfect being.
2. Perfection always includes existence.
3. God exists.
To believe that clear and distinct ideas requires a non-deceiving God to validate it, you would have to believe point 2, that perfection always includes existence. What if you don't want to believe that? This makes his argument flawed and unpersuasive. The cost of this circular reasoning is that people will not be on board with your final point if they cannot agree with the evidence you are presenting. I think that you cannot make a big claim like perfection always includes existence without having evidence for that alone. Using circular evidence traps you in a thought loop that is unproductive and does not answer life's biggest questions. Thinking in this circular pattern makes me believe that there really is an evil genius deceiving me.
I believe that Arnauld is correct in his criticism of the Cartesian Circle. Gods entire argument for the existence of god is, god is a perfect being, for something to be perfect it exists, therefore god must exist. This argument is completely circumstantial and hinges on a fundamental belief of what god is as well what entails perfection. The argument can be broken in two ways, A) god is not a supremely powerful being, but perfection does mean existence. If this is true, than the premises do not relate and the conclusion is false. B) god is supremely perfect, however perfection does not require existence. Developing an argument for the existence of god based upon a circumstantial beliefs that rely on one another to be true is no way to develop a critical argument. This creates a loop that is both inescapable and easily broken by critics. Additionally, adding the extra circumstances making it more difficult to prove a great deceiver show that Descartes was lost for a true argument. Antoine Arnauld and the other critics were absolutely correct.
ReplyDeleteIn Descartes' meditations, he tries to disprove the theories of skeptics and attain a strong foundation for his basis of knowledge. In Descartes' Cogito, he provides a definitive argument for his existence, however, given that he only proves one thing, this is a shallow victory. In order to really prove that knowledge is knowable, he turns to a greater source of inspiration, God. This is where Descartes gets himself into trouble in terms of his logic. He says that God exists because we can clearly perceive things, and then he is using that argument because we can clearly perceive things, we cannot be being deceived and God exists. This whole argument attempts to thwart the idea of there being an evil genius, but it certainly fails. Antoine Arnold, and the others whole spoke of similar wholes in Descartes argument, are absolutely correct when they speak of the fallibility of his argument. He is saying that one idea proves another idea which circles back around to prove the first idea. This "Cartesian Circle" of his provides a problem because there can be no real basis for his first claim, him basically making it a premise because he wanted it to be true. This circular logic can never be used to make a valid point because something in the equation has to be contrived. Descartes tried to pull out a flimsy argument, making some minute distinction to try to loophole out of his circle. However, he does not really have much of a leg to stand on for his claims, making this one of the most fatal counters to his logic and ruining a lot of the victories he was thought to have achieved in these meditations.
ReplyDeleteIn his meditations, Descartes uses the technique in which he argues in a circle. One of his most famous examples of this is the Cartesian Circle. The Cartesian Circle consists of the following premises
ReplyDeleteI. In order to prove god exists, we need to prove the premises of the argument
II. In order to prove the premises, we need the general rule of clear and distinct perceptions
III. In order to prove the rule, we need to prove that god exists
I believe that arguing in a circle is meaningless and does not get anywhere. First off, arguing in a circle is defined as a “logical fallacy.” To put Descartes argument into clearer terms, lets compare it with a similar one. “What came first? The chicken or the egg?” This question does not get anybody anywhere. It is just based on the interpretations of the people. When arguing in a circle there is no information to back up the point/claim. That is why these circles are created in the first place. They are a lack of knowledge/information. Nothing gets resolved. Furthermore the circles are easily critiqued by anyone. One simply has to disagree with an argument since the entire thing is based on interpretation or opinion. Any puncture in the premises will lead to the collapse of the whole circle. In the Descartes argument, if one believes that the rule of clear and distinct ideas has no association with the proof of god, then the entire argument does not work.
Arnauld’s criticism of Descartes Ontological Argument is correct. In Meditations, Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God. By proving the existence of God, Descartes believes, he will have found the cause to all of his clear and distinct perceptions. In his proof of God’s existence, he says that God is a perfect being. He then proves that this perfect God must exist because existence is more perfect than non-existence. This proof is Descartes’s ontological argument However, according to Arnauld, that logic requires the principle of clear and distinct perceptions. Descartes’s clear and distinct perceptions are perceptions that cannot be doubted because they have no logical faults in the mind (for example, “1=1”). Arnauld argues that the first two premises of Descartes’s ontological argument are being held as clear and distinct perceptions. He assumes that God’s perfectness is clear and distinct, and he assumes the superiority of existence over non-existence as clear and distinct. However, many could disagree. One could point to all the evil in the world as proof that God is not perfect, that he must have some faults that could lead to evil existing. One could bring up logical paradoxes like asking, “Can a perfect God can make a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it?” Concerning the second premise, one could look back at Plato’s forms and see non-existence as more perfect than existence. The perfect circle does not exist in nature, only in our minds, for example. With Descartes’s ontological argument, he is using premises based on clear and distinct perceptions. Yet, he is using that argument to prove the existence of a God that he says is the cause of all his clear and distinct perceptions. However, in order for that existence to be proven, the cause of clear and distinct perceptions must be established. This circularity continues forever, and is dubbed the “Cartesian Circle”, Arnauld’s famous criticism.
ReplyDeleteIn one of his most famous arguments, Descartes attempts to prove the existence of god, in order to use god as a building block to build other ideas off of, as well as prove there is not a deceiver. Descartes argues that god is an all perfect being, and existence is a property of being all perfect, and therefor god must exist. Antoine Arnauld claims that this is a circular argument. This is in fact seen to be circular, as claiming that god is an all perfect being requires that god exists, as a requirement to being perfect according to Descartes is the fact of existence. If this is true, In order for god to be an all perfect being, his existence must exist. This is a problem though, because if existence is a property of being all perfect, assuming that god is all perfect is also assuming that god exists in an effort to prove that god exists. This leads to the circular argument, where the first premise requires the last in order to work. The first and second premises are where the problem is, as the first assumes that god is perfect, and the second assumes that a part of the definition of perfection is existing, which then assumes that god is an all perfect being, as well as that all perfect things must exists. As can be seen, Descartes argues circularly here, as well as having several partitions which can be debated, and questioned, resulting in him losing credibility, and proving Arnauld, as well as other critics to be right.
ReplyDeleten Descartes meditations he uses the technique in which he argues in a circle. This argument is called the Cartesian Circle that has three main arguments. To prove that God exists one needs the premises of the argument, to prove the premises one needs the general rule of perceptions, and to prove the rule one needs to prove that God exists. Descartes tries to prove the existence of God by using the idea that if one thing is perfect it must exist. He argues that God is a perfect being which means that God must exist. But many flaws come with this claim such as if God does exist, why is there evil? A personal example I have is when I went to a neighborhood in Isreal called Mae Shearim. This neighborhood is known to be one of the most orthodox neighborhoods in Israel. My family and I were taken on a tour by a tour guide when my brother brought up a very interesting question. He asked if God is so perfect, why would he allow the Holocaust to happen? His answer was, "They believe that it was to punish the Jews who did not practice Judaism the same way they did." Even if this were to be true the Holocaust is such a brutal time in history that no good could have come out of it. This statement questions the reality of God.
ReplyDeleteDescartes’ “Cartesian Circle” is famous for its circular claims. In his quest for finding a set of foundational beliefs, he runs into an issue. The issue being that in order to discover clear and distinct ideas for his foundational beliefs, he thinks there must be a non-deceiving God, however, to prove the existence of a non-deceiving God, we must have a set of clear, distinct ideas. Antoine Arnauld is correct in criticizing Descartes as it is impossible to progress in any sense of the word when you are just going to run into circular thinking. Even Descartes himself tries to backtrack on his ideas, claiming that he was not talking about needing to prove the existence of God to find clear and distinct ideas, but rather he needs God to preserve his memory of the clear and distinct ideas. This is an odd move on the part of Descartes because in nearly every other argument he makes, he is able to clarify his meaning. Yet, the one argument with the most controversial outcome is the one he makes an excuse for.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Antoine Arnauld is right to accuse Descartes of this circle because the famous philosopher’s premises on God’s existence are based on a flawed argument (Cogito) that he explains in Meditation Two. In a simple form, Descartes claims that anything that we believe to be true is real, he believes God exist, and therefore God exists. He states that, [It cannot be said] that this idea of God is perhaps materially false and thus can originate from nothing, as I remarked just now about the ideas of heat and cold and the like” (Descartes 46). Arnauld finds a major flaw in Descartes’ claim with the famous “Cartesian Circle” argument. It goes along these lines, “You are not yet certain of the existence of God, and you say that you are not certain of anything. It follows from this that you do not yet clearly and distinctly know that you are a thinking thing, since, on your own admission, that knowledge depends on the clear knowledge of an existing God” (Objections and Replies). One can only have knowledge when God exists, but according to Descartes, you know that God exists because you perceive it to be true. This claim infinitely contradicts itself and never comes to a finite conclusion. Descartes tries to deflect this claim by saying that he only needs God for the memory of his knowledge, but this would then imply that he was not specific enough in his main claim and that it needs revising. Therefore, Antoine Arnauld’s accusation is correct.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that Descartes uses to prove his “general rule” does indeed run in a circle. Although he does admit that there is a possibility that an “Evil Genius” existing, he fails to remember that possibility when it comes to building up from his foundational beliefs. He claims that, because he can clearly and distinctly perceive that he exists and he is a thinking thing, that everything that he clearly and distinctly perceives is true. However, the nature of being deceived insinuates that the deceived person truly believes that what they perceive is true when it is false. He simply cannot build any other ideas about things he perceives outside of himself because of the possibility of an Evil Genius. Still, Descartes claims that this proves that God exists, and, because God exists, he would never lie to us, making everything that we clearly and distinctly perceive true. The premises form a loop that trap the “general rule” that cannot be proven by itself. Descartes would have to break the loop by proving God’s existence another way or by providing another way that we can see the truth of things without God’s help in a way that has more foundation than the answer he gives Arnauld when he objects to Descartes’ “general rule.”
ReplyDeleteI believe that Arnauld is in fact correct. Examining the Cartesian Circle, you can’t all out prove clearly and distinctly that God exists. We cannot see him or her. God is an invisible entity that we believe cause everything that we cannot explain with reason, science, or cognitive deliberation. Say that God is the omnipotent master of deception. He could be hiding his true image right now. Someone that you see every day could be god. But you never know. The possible solid form of who god is might not even know who he is. Because this is true, it is impossible for the circle to end. Therefore you can’t clearly and distinctly justify all of your ideas. You can never clearly and distinctly come to the conclusion that an all-knowing, infallible entity exists because he might in fact be the evil genius. This is an opposition to Descartes when he says;
ReplyDelete“But doubtless I did exist, if I persuaded myself of something. But there is some deceiver or other who is supremely powerful and supremely sly and who is always deliberately deceiving me. Then too there is no doubt that I exist, if he is deceiving me. And let him do his best at deception, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I shall think that I am something. Thus, after everything has been most carefully weighed, it must finally be established that this pronouncement “I am, I exist” is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind.”
We essentially can’t justify anything. This is because we can’t see if we’re being tricked or not.
Antoine Arnauld’s constructive criticism against Descartes’ world-renowned Ontological Argument is correct and justified. Throughout Rene Descartes’ novel, Meditations of Frist Philosophy, he uses a basis of logic to prove the existence of God throughout his Ontological Argument. Descartes thinks that by proving the presence of God, all of his perceptions will become distinct and clear. To prove that God exists, Descartes’ insists that God is a perfect being, and in order for something to be perfect it needs to exist. From Descartes’ argument, if god is perfect, he therefore must exist. Many philosophers believe that Descartes’ premises from his Ontological Argument are inaccurate and incorrect. Descartes premises lead to the idea that God is perfect and that he exists. Arnauld is correct when he claims that Descartes’ arguments regarding God always leads to an endless cycle. Many critics also argue that if God were perfect, there would never be any bad in the world. A supreme being would be able to detect and destroy any type of negativity. God should be able to prohibit any type of deception people experience. Descartes does not address any of the problems from his argument for God’s existence. Others may also argue that perfection does not need to exist; so, god does not need to exist. The beliefs that Arnauld and many others hold are justified and can be supported by simple evidence. If Descartes’ created more in-depth counterarguments to address the critics of his Ontological Argument, it would be much more difficult to criticize the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteWhen Antoine Arnauld and several other philosophers critiqued Descartes’ logic on one of his fundamental beliefs, it raised questions among the philosophical community about whether Descartes had made any point at all on one specific issue. That issue is whether or not there is an existent God. Descartes argued that to prove God’s existence we need knowledge of clear and distinct ideas. However, to know anything at all clearly and distinctly, we need to know that God exists. Arnauld points out that this creates an infinite loop of flawed logic. He is correct in saying that Descartes was arguing in a circle, an argument so famous it became known as the “Cartesian Circle.” Upon receiving this criticism from Arnauld, Descartes tried to argue that he meant something entirely different. He says that he didn’t mean we needed God’s existence to know other things clearly and distinctly, just to recall them later on after we have learned them. Descartes’ argument for God’s existence then essentially ends up boiling down to “God is perfect, and for something to be perfect it has to exist, therefore God exists.” This is ultimately heavily flawed and cyclical logic which also shows a high level of confirmation bias, because the first premise, God’s perfection, has to ultimately be believed without proof for any of the rest of the argument to make sense. Therefore, Arnauld is absolutely correct in saying that Descartes has dug himself into a hole, effectively trapping this entire argument in a realm of incredibility.
ReplyDelete