Wednesday, October 28, 2009
A God Chasing His Tail?
Antoine Arnauld 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 proposes the issue that our senses deceive us. Since our senses inevitably are the means for our perception of everything, he concludes that there must be a non-deceiving God to validate certain, fundamental ideas, because there are some ideas (i.e. triangle example) that he believes to be undoubtedly true. I believe Arnauld is correct in thinking this is a very circular argument. The creation of the idea of God had to originate by someone, somewhere, and therefore is just as likely to be deceitful (due to human senses, error in perception, etc.) as any other belief. So the idea of a non-deceiving God cannot validate clear and distinct ideas, as it itself does not have validation.
ReplyDeleteThe argument Descartes makes is only circular under Arnauld's interpretation. Descartes argues in response that he only requires God's existence for memory, not to perceive things that are clear and distinct. The cogito for instance does not require God or any other belief to be true as it is self verifying. The problem is rather that Descartes proof that God exists is flawed. Descartes claims he cannot doubt reason because reason is based on reason itself, and by reason God exists. This claim is as warrantless as Descartes provides no explanation for why, by reason, God must exist. Looking historically Gods and religion have always served to explain the unknown. It is for this reason religious theories are constantly evolving as scientific evidence explains natural phenomenon (few still believe solar eclipses are the work of an angry God). Descartes proof of clear and distinct ideas, in my opinion, survives with or without the presence of God.
ReplyDeleteArnauld is correct in his accusation that Descartes is arguing in a circle. Descartes responds by claiming that he only needs God to exist for memory, as Evan pointed out. This response puts Descartes in a worse position than he was in before. Though he does present an argument that, if valid, takes him out of the circle, but not completely. The reason for this is because even if he only needs God in memory, he can't prove that what he originally perceived was true in the first place. To do this, he has to rely on the basis that God exists. In this sense, Descartes escaped his original circle by entering a different circle. In addition to this, his argument does not logically prove that he does not need God to prove that what he perceives to be true. If we assume that he does only need God for memory, he has no basis for his argument that what he perceives is true.
ReplyDelete