Announcements

1
Announcements

• For Tuesdays class read Meditation Six from
  Descartes and Chapters 1-4 (they are short) from
  Hume
• Midterm structure Part One Argument
  Recognition (5 1 mark each)
• Part Two Test for validity (5 1 mark each)
• Part Three Fallacies (5 of which one of them
  will be good 1 mark each)
• Part Four Short Descartes Question ( 5 marks)

2
The Cartesian Circle

• Many if not most philosophers accuse
  Descartes of circularity here. Only through the
  existence of God can we trust our clear and
  distinct ideas. Yet, only by trusting our clear
  and distinct ideas can we prove the existence of
  God. Isnt this hopelessly circular?
• Rebuttal (?) This only appears to be circular.
  Descartes begins the third meditation with a
  tentative hypothesis I now seem able to posit
  as a general rule.. He then works through this

3
The Cartesian Circle

• hypothesis. This is not circular. Why not? By
  assuming our clear and distinct ideas we are not
  guaranteeing that we can prove the existence of
  God or validate them that would be circular.
  In fact, there are plenty of counter-arguments
  against Descartes here. To list just a few (1)
  hasnt Darwin taught us that you can get the
  greater from the lesser contrary to DCP (2)
  can we not jettison the whole idea of greater
  degrees of reality something either exists or
  it doesnt.

4
The Cartesian Circle

• and thats it. There is no sense to be made of
  greater reality contrary to the DCP (3) Do we
  have an idea of God? By employing our clear and
  distinct ideas we are not assuming that we can
  ultimately prove God or validate them.
  Therefore, this doesnt have the structure of a
  circular argument p, therefore, p.
• What do you think? Does this rebuttal work?

5
The Cartesian Circle

• Rebuttal (2) A broader question. How else can
  we justify or validate rationality? We are
  reminded of Aristotles dictum the radical
  skeptic should remain silent. Why? Either she
  can argue for her position or she cant. If she
  argues for her position then she is arguing with
  all that that implies. If she cant then she
  best remain silent we can also wonder what her
  position is worth given that we are rational
  beings.
• Better?

6
The Cartesian Circle

• Rebuttal (3) We seem to be faced with a
  dilemma. Either we can justify reason rationally
  or non-rationally. If it is non-rationally then
  reason cannot be justified since it is
  non-rational. If it is justified rationally then
  it seems to be circular presupposing rationality.
  Ways out
• (1) Reason is a autonomous self-verifying,
  self-justifying foundation some interpret
  Descartes as ultimately advocating this. The
  job of the philosopher in justifying reason is
  to show that it

7
The Cartesian Circle

• is coherent and consistent. That the doubts it
  itself poses the evil demon can indeed be
  refuted. However, this doesnt demand that we
  jettison reason nor can we. Problems (1)
  whatever is presented as a foundation seems to be
  able to be doubted (2) coherence and
  consistency is not truth.
• (2) What is involved, presupposed, in accepting
  this dilemma? Isnt it rationality. Therefore,
  it is a false dilemma?

8
The Cartesian Circle

• (3) The above point we assume reason but since
  there is no guarantee that we can justify
  rationality rationally it is not a vicious
  circle. As we shall see with Hume, it may very
  well be that some of the most important rational
  principles may have nothing going for them but
  custom and habit.
• (4) Assert a non-rational access to God
  religious experience, intuition of the divine or
  whatever and then argue that reason is a
  gift of God. Logically this might work but it
  is not a move

9
The Cartesian Circle

• philosophers would accept. Shouldnt such a
  non-rational source be subject to rational
  scrutiny?
• What do you think?

10
Meditation IV Concerning the True and the False

• Goal to explain error given that God is not a
  deceiver
• Problem
• 1. God is responsible for what she has created.
• 2. God created me.
• 3. I am occasionally in error.
• Therefore, 4. God is ultimately responsible for
  error.
• 5. God is not a deceiver.

11
The Problem

• Therefore, 6. God cannot ultimately be
  responsible for error.
• Therefore, either (a) inconsistency and
  incoherence in belief about God or (b) God is to
  blame which would mean that God is not perfect
  and in this case, is a deceiver.
• Descartes cannot accept either (a) or (b) so he
  looks for another option.

12
Descartes Argument

• In outline 1. God gave me a finite intellect (
  though finite it is good and thus we have no
  reason to complain)
• 2. God gave me an infinite will (this
  in-itself is also good and thus we have no reason
  to complain)
• Therefore, 3. All that God has given me is good.
• Error results from the discrepancy, our failure
  to align the two. But that is something WE do
  and therefore God is not to blame.

13
Descartes Argument

• A reassertion that God is not a deceiver
• I acknowledge that it is impossible for God
  ever to deceive me, for trickery or deception is
  always indicative of some imperfection. And
  although the ability to deceive seems to be an
  indication of cleverness or power, the will to
  deceive undoubtedly attests to maliciousness or
  weakness. Accordingly, deception is incompatible
  with God. (53)
• Why is deception a weakness? Can we think of a
  supporting argument?

14
Why am I in error?

• God created me. God is not a deceiver.
  Therefore, it seems to follow from this that I
  am never capable of making a mistake (54)
• A closer look at the basic argument
• 1. God gave me a finite intellect.
• Three key points here
• (i) The intellect in-itself is good.
• (ii) Error is not positive that is, it
  doesnt exist in its own right as something
  self-standing and .

15
God gave me a finite intellect

• .independent from which it would thereby have to
  be created.
• (iii) we have no reason to complain for a finite
  understanding
• (i) The intellect in-itself is not the source of
  error.
• Through the intellect alone I merely perceive
  ideas, about which I can render a judgment.
  Strictly speaking, no error is to be found in the
  intellect when properly viewed in this
  manner.(56)

16
A finite intellect

• There exists no error yet in having an idea or in
  thinking that something appears to you. If that
  is how it appears to you, then that is how it
  appears. No error yet. Error occurs when we
  assert or judge something to be the case and
  that will involve the will.
• (ii) Error is not positive
• Error is negative characterize as an absence
• I.e., cold absence of heat, weakness absence
  of power, illness absence of health

17
Error is not positive

• As negative it does not exist in its own right
  but is rather parasitic upon something else which
  is positive illness is the illness of a healthy
  body. What is positive here is the healthy body.
• Since it doesnt exist independently in its own
  right, it is not created
• Thus I certainly understand that error as such
  is not something real that depends upon God, but
  rather is merely a defect. And thus there is no
  need to account for my errors by positing a
  faculty

18
Error is not positive

• given to me by God for this purpose.(54)
• There exists no error faculty by which we can
  claim that God created it.
• However, error doesnt simply appear negative but
  rather a privation which is a problem. Whats
  the difference?
• The negative something we lack but dont need.
  We couldve had greater more powerful intellects
  but
• For although perhaps there may exists countless..

19
Error is not positive

• things about which I have no idea, nevertheless
  it must not be said that, strictly speaking, I am
  deprived of these ideas but only that I lack them
  in a negative sense. (56)
• What we dont have, we dont need. We have
  enough to have knowledge of the world, lead our
  lives and fulfill our and Gods purposes.
• A privation something we lack that we do need,
  that somehow ought and therefore we can blame
  God to be in me (55)

20
Error is not positive

• A privation is still characterized as lack and
  negativity. It is not a thing to be created.
  What Descartes wishes to show us is that from our
  perspective, error is a privation in that we have
  a lack of knowledge we do need and we need to rid
  ourselves of error. We do have epistemic
  obligations that accounts for the ought above.
  However, in relation to God since we can fulfill
  these obligations, error is ultimately just
  negative.

21
Error is not positive

• God is only blameworthy if we are never able to
  be free of error an in-built feature of our
  nature. But we can correct our mistakes.
• (iii) God is not to be blamed for a finite
  intellect
• I cannot adduce an argument to prove that God
  ought to have given me a greater faculty of
  knowing than he did. No matter how expert a
  craftsman I understand him to be, still I do not
  for that reason believe he ought to have bestowed
  on each one of his works all the perfections that
  he..

22
The will

• can put into some.
• 2. God gave me an infinite will that is
  limited by no boundaries whatever. (56)
• In what way is the will infinite?
• Strictly in the sense of our ability to want or
  choose. I can choose to move a mountain. God
  can choose to move a mountain. God can do it, I
  cant. However, strictly formally in terms of
  the choice itself, my will is just as infinite.

23
A fascinating idea of freedom

• The highest degree of freedom
• In order to be free I need not be capable of
  being moved in each direction on the contrary,
  the more I am inclined toward one directionthe
  more freely do I choose that direction.(58)
• The lowest grade of freedom
• ..the indifference that I experience when there
  is no reason moving me more in one direction than
  in another is the lowest grade of freedom (58)

24
A fascinating idea of freedom

• Why is this so fascinating? Where necessity
  and freedom become one i.e., God is totally
  free and yet absolutely necessary
• The will is good. Whence error?
• Our failure to align the intellect and will.
  Since the will is infinite it can outstrip,
  surpass, the intellect. Therefore, it can form
  judgments NOT based on clear and distinct ideas.
  Since the will is infinite it is not restricted
  to the evidence.

25
Whence Error?

• We have the ability to move beyond what the
  evidence says in forming conclusions.
• We are making these mistakes in a misuse of our
  will therefore, God is not to be blamed
• We can correct this
• But if I hold off from making a judgment when I
  do not perceive what is true with sufficient
  clarity and distinctness, it is clear that I am
  acting properly and am not committing an error.
  (59)

26
Whence Error?

• If we couldnt correct ourselves, then that would
  be a cause for complaint.
• Does this get God off the hook?
• God knew in giving us a finite intellect and an
  infinite will where such a will can extend
  further than the intellect, that a clash is
  possible if not inevitable ( which is it?). So
  isnt he still ultimately responsible?
• If God didnt want us to be deceived or deceive
  us, she could have (a) given us a perfect
  intellect

27
Whence Error?

• (b) not give us a will or at least a will
  restricted to clear and distinct ideas. Couldnt
  God create us to always freely choose the good?
• Descartes seems to concede this.
• Nevertheless, I see that God could easily have
  brought it about that, while still being free and
  having finite knowledge, I should nonetheless
  never make a mistake.(61)

28
A new argument

• But I cannot therefore deny that it may somehow
  be a greater perfection in the universe as a
  whole that some of its parts are not immune to
  error, while others are, than if all of them were
  exactly alike. And I have no right to complain
  that the part God has wished me to play is not
  the principal and most perfect one of all (61)
• An analogy a beautiful painting, the most
  beautiful painting possible, may contain shades
  that considered in themselves dont look
  beautiful at all.

29
A new argument

• Furthermore, we dont know Gods ultimate
  purposes which influences in what manner we can
  complain i.e., are we assuming that we are
  Gods pets in complaining that the cage we are in
  (our world) is not as cozy and comfortable as it
  could be? What if were not meant to be pets?
  Could we complain thus?
• Does this argument from the whole work? Can
  you see problems in it?

30
A New Argument

• More importantly, why does Descartes feel the
  need to make it? What does that tell us about
  his basic argument?

31
Meditation Five

• On the essence of material things
• Another proof for the existence of God
• On the essence of things
• From the previous meditations Descartes believes
  that he has established his criterion of truth
  clear and distinct ideas.
• With the idea of God not being a deceiver he
  could state that those ideas do correspond to an
  independent reality and even that he is not
  dreaming would a non-deceptive God allow

32
Meditation Five

• for our life to be all just a dream?
• However, this is not his approach here
  Meditation Six
• He begins by considering the ideas he has of
  material things sorting out what clearly and
  distinctly belongs to them.
• Some ideas of material things are such that
• (a) they seem more remembered than learned
• (b) they are not fabricated by me but rather
  have their own true and immutable natures (64)

33
Meditation Five

• (c) I did not get them from experience.
• Why not?
• For I can think of countless other figures,
  concerning which there can be no suspicion of
  their ever having entered me through the senses,
  and yet I can demonstrate various properties of
  these figures, no less than I can those of the
  triangle. (65)
• So what are these ideas? What properties are we
  talking about?

34
Meditation Five

• I always took the truths I clearly recognized
  regarding figures, numbers, or other things
  pertaining to arithmetic, geometry or, in
  general, to pure and abstract mathematics to be
  the most certain of all. (65)
• A things mathematical and geometrical
  properties size, shape and position.
• The Ontological Argument for the existence of
  God - Class Handout