In the first meditation of his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes attempts to prove that the only thing we can be certain of is our own existence. He does this by systematically doubting everything he has ever believed, including his senses, his memories, and even the existence of God. He argues that our senses can deceive us, and that even our understanding of basic mathematical truths could be wrong if an omnipotent God wanted to deceive us. However, he concludes that even if he is being deceived, he must exist in order to be deceived. This famous argument is known as Cogito, ergo sum, or I think, therefore I am.
Characteristics | Values |
---|---|
First Meditation's purpose | To prove the existence of God and the immortality of the soul |
First Meditation's approach | To set the groundwork for the meditations that follow, where doubt is employed as a powerful tool against Aristotelian philosophy |
First Meditation's other approach | To be read on its own as the foundation of modern skepticism |
First Meditation's content | The Meditator reflects on the number of falsehoods he has believed during his life and on the subsequent faultiness of the body of knowledge he has built up from these falsehoods |
First Meditation's doubt | The Meditator reasons that he need only find some reason to doubt his present opinions in order to prompt him to seek sturdier foundations for his knowledge |
First Meditation's doubt on senses | The Meditator acknowledges that sometimes the senses can deceive, but only with respect to objects that are very small or far away, and that sensory knowledge on the whole is quite sturdy |
First Meditation's doubt on insanity | The Meditator acknowledges that insane people might be more deceived, but that he is clearly not one of them and needn't worry himself about that |
First Meditation's doubt on dreams | The Meditator realizes that he is often convinced when he is dreaming that he is sensing real objects |
First Meditation's doubt on composite things | The Meditator concludes that he can doubt studies based on composite things, like medicine, astronomy, or physics |
First Meditation's doubt on simple things | The Meditator realizes that even simple things can be doubted |
First Meditation's doubt on God | The Meditator reasons that if there is no God, then there is an even greater likelihood of being deceived, since our imperfect senses would not have been created by a perfect being |
First Meditation's doubt on habitual opinions | The Meditator finds it almost impossible to keep his habitual opinions and assumptions out of his head, try as he might |
First Meditation's doubt on evil demon | The Meditator resolves to pretend that not God, but some evil demon has committed itself to deceiving him so that everything he thinks he knows is false |
First Meditation's conclusion | The Meditator indulges in his old beliefs, afraid to awake to a life of confusion |
What You'll Learn
The unreliability of sensory knowledge
In his First Meditation, Descartes attempts to prove that sensory knowledge is unreliable. He begins by acknowledging that he has believed many false things in his life, and that the body of knowledge he has built upon these falsehoods is faulty. To rebuild his knowledge on more certain grounds, Descartes resolves to doubt all of his opinions and beliefs.
He first turns to his senses, which he has relied on for his most certain knowledge. Descartes acknowledges that the senses can sometimes deceive, but only with respect to objects that are very small or far away. However, he is often convinced when he is dreaming that he is sensing real objects, and he reflects that even dream images are drawn from waking experience. Thus, he concludes that he cannot doubt the simple and universal parts from which composite things are constructed, such as shape, quantity, size, and time.
Upon further reflection, Descartes realizes that even these simple things can be doubted. An omnipotent God could make even our conception of mathematics false. If there is no God, there is an even greater likelihood of being deceived since our imperfect senses would not have been created by a perfect being.
Descartes proposes several arguments to illustrate the unreliability of sensory knowledge. In the Dream Argument, he points out that he often dreams of things that seem real to him while he is asleep. He may feel certain that he is awake and sitting by the fire, but he has often dreamed this very thing and been wholly convinced by it. Thus, he cannot trust his senses to convey true information about the world around him.
In the Deceiving God and Evil Demon arguments, Descartes suggests that he may be under the control of an all-powerful being bent on deceiving him. In that case, he does not have a body at all but is merely a brain fed information and illusions by the all-powerful being. Descartes does not intend these arguments to be taken literally; his point is to demonstrate that the senses can be deceived.
At the time, Descartes' position was radical, as he was proposing that scientific observation had to be an interpretive act requiring careful monitoring. The proponents of the British empiricist movement, who believed that all knowledge comes through the senses, especially opposed Descartes' ideas. Descartes and his followers argued the opposite, claiming that true knowledge comes only through the application of pure reason.
The Differences Between Daydreaming and Meditation Explained
You may want to see also
The nature of the human mind
In the Second Meditation, titled "The Nature of the Human Mind", Descartes lays out a pattern of thought, sometimes called representationalism, in response to the doubts forwarded in the First Meditation. He identifies five steps in this theory:
- We have access to only the world of our ideas; things in the world are accessed only indirectly.
- These ideas are understood to include all of the contents of the mind, including perceptions, images, memories, concepts, beliefs, intentions, decisions, etc.
- Ideas and the things they represent are separate from each other.
- These represented things are many times "external" to the mind.
- It is possible for these ideas to constitute either accurate or false representations.
Descartes argues that this representational theory disconnects the world from the mind, leading to the need for some sort of bridge to span the separation and provide good reasons to believe that the ideas accurately represent the outside world.
To construct this bridge, Descartes uses the following argument:
> I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world — no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Doesn't it follow that I don't exist? No, surely I must exist if it's me who is convinced of something. But there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived. But surely I exist, if I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, he will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something. Thus having fully weighed every consideration, I must finally conclude that the statement "I am, I exist" must be true whenever I state it or mentally consider it.
In other words, one's consciousness implies one's existence. Descartes sums this up in the phrase "I think, therefore I am" (or "Cogito, ergo sum" in Latin).
Once he secures his existence, Descartes seeks to find out what "I" is. He rejects the typical method, which looks for a definition (e.g. "rational animal"), because the words used in the definition would then need to be defined. Instead, he seeks simple terms whose meaning can be easily understood. From these self-evident truths, complex terms can be built up.
The first of these self-evident truths is Descartes' proof of existence turned on its head:
> But what then am I? A thinking thing. And what is that? Something that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and also senses and has mental images.
To define himself further, Descartes turns to the example of wax. He determines that wax is not defined by its colour, texture, or shape, as all of these things can change and the substance still be wax. He believes that wax is perceived "by the intellect alone". Therefore, he distinguishes between ordinary perception and judgment. When one understands the mathematical principles of the substance, such as its expansion under heat, figure and motion, the knowledge of the wax can be clear and distinct.
If a substance such as wax can be known in this fashion, then the same must be true of ourselves. The self, then, is not determined by what we sense of ourselves—these hands, this head, these eyes—but by simply the things one thinks. Thus, one "can't grasp anything more easily or plainly than [his] mind."
Descartes concludes that he exists because he is a "thinking thing". If he is the thing that can be deceived and can think and have thoughts, then he must exist.
Drumming Meditation: A Beginner's Guide
You may want to see also
The existence of God
In his First Meditation, Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God by first discarding all belief in things that are not absolutely certain. He reasons that he need only find some reason to doubt his present opinions to prompt him to seek sturdier foundations for his knowledge. He then turns to the senses, acknowledging that they can sometimes deceive, but only with respect to objects that are very small or far away. However, he realises that he is often convinced when dreaming that he is sensing real objects, and that even dream images are drawn from waking experience.
Descartes concludes that he cannot doubt the simple and universal parts that make up composite things, such as shape, quantity, size, and time. He also cannot doubt studies based on simple things, like arithmetic and geometry. However, he then realises that even these simple things can be doubted, as an omnipotent God could make even our conception of mathematics false.
Descartes supposes that not God, but some evil demon has committed itself to deceiving him so that everything he thinks he knows is false. By doubting everything, he can at least be sure not to be misled into falsehood by this demon.
In his Third Meditation, Descartes turns to the existence of God. He proposes that there are three types of ideas: innate, fictitious, and adventitious. He argues that the idea of God is innate and placed in us by God, rejecting the possibility that such an idea is invented or adventitious. He reasons that something cannot come from nothing, and that the cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality.
Descartes concludes that he has an idea of God, an idea that has infinite objective reality. He cannot be the cause of this idea, as he is not an infinite and perfect being. Therefore, only an infinite and perfect being—God—could cause such an idea.
Descartes also argues that an absolutely perfect being is benevolent, and would not deceive him. He concludes that his existence must have a cause, and that the only possible ultimate cause is God.
In his Fifth Meditation, Descartes advances another logical proof of God's existence. He separates external objects into those that are clear and distinct and those that are confused and obscure. He asserts that he is just as certain about God as he is about mathematical ideas. He uses the example of a mountain and a valley to illustrate that the fact that one cannot conceive of God without existence inherently rules out the possibility of God's non-existence.
Descartes' ontological argument for God's existence, introduced by the medieval English logician St. Anselm of Canterbury, is at the heart of his rationalism. It establishes certain knowledge about an existing thing solely on the basis of reasoning from innate ideas, with no help from sensory experience.
Meditation as a Practice: Exploring the Mind-Body Connection
You may want to see also
The distinction between the human soul and the body
In his First Meditation, Descartes attempts to prove that the mind is something distinct from the body. He begins by noting that his opinions have been based on his senses, but that we cannot be certain that our senses do not deceive us. For instance, we cannot be certain that what we think of as our sensations of the world are not a dream.
Descartes uses the example of dreaming of being dressed and sitting by the fire, when in reality, one is undressed and lying in bed, to illustrate this point. He argues that there seems to be a sense in which he is less than certain about the existence of the bodies he perceives. He introduces the idea of an evil demon to further illustrate this point. Descartes supposes that some powerful and deceitful demon has employed all its artifice to deceive him, and that all external things are nothing but illusions.
Descartes then wonders if there is anything whose existence cannot be doubted. He finds that while he can doubt the existence of external things, he cannot doubt his own existence. He argues that even if he is being deceived, he must exist to be deceived. Thus, he concludes that the proposition "I am, I exist" is necessarily true.
Descartes further argues that if he can clearly and distinctly conceive of some state of affairs, then God could create that state of affairs. Therefore, if he can clearly and distinctly conceive of his mind existing without his body, then it is possible for his mind to exist without his body.
Descartes concludes that the mind is not identical to any body. He defines bodies as things that have extension in space, and since minds are not identical to bodies, minds do not have extension and do not exist in space.
Esther's thoughts on the benefits of soefic meditation
You may want to see also
The nature of truth and falsity
In the fourth meditation, Descartes attempts to answer the question of how error and falsity are possible if God is perfectly good and the source of all things. He begins by asserting that knowledge of God will lead to knowledge of other things. As God is perfect, it is impossible that he would deceive Descartes, because deception is an imperfection. However, Descartes knows himself to be capable of error, and so he must examine the nature of his ability to err.
Descartes concludes that God must have created him so that he could be wrong. Imperfect things, like him, may occupy their place in the world perfectly. In other words, Descartes' imperfections may be what make him perfect for his role in God's plan. He reasons that his propensity to err must be his own failure to use his method to approach the knowledge sent to him by God.
Descartes decides that if he suspends judgement when he does not clearly and distinctly grasp what is true, he will not be deceived. However, if he affirms or denies in such cases, he misuses his freedom of choice. If he affirms what is false, he is clearly in error, and if he happens upon the truth, he is still blameworthy since perception of the understanding should always precede a decision of the will.
Descartes concludes that the deprivation that accounts for error lies in the working of the will, insofar as it comes from him and not his God-given ability to will.
The Benefits of Meditation for Maladaptive Daydreaming
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
In his first meditation, Descartes attempts to prove that everything he knows is doubtful. He does this by doubting the foundations of his beliefs. He concludes that he can doubt everything he knows through his senses, even the existence of his body.
Descartes attempts to prove that he can know something for certain, even if he doubts everything he knows through his senses. He concludes that he can know for certain that he exists, because he is thinking. This is known as the "Cogito" argument.
Descartes attempts to prove that he is a thinking thing, not a body. He concludes that he can doubt that he has a body, but he cannot doubt that he is a thinking thing. Therefore, he is a thinking thing, not a body.