Ren Descartes (1596 - 1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician,

scientist and writer of the Age of Reason. He has been called the "Father of
Modern Philosophy", and much of subsequent Western philosophy can be
seen as a response to his writings. He is responsible for one of the bestknown quotations in philosophy:"Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore
I am").
He was a pioneer and major figure in 17th Century
Continental Rationalism (often known as Cartesianism) later advocated
by Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Leibniz, and opposed by the British
Empiricist school of thought of Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley andHume. He
represents a major break with the Aristotelianism and Scholasticism of
theMedieval period.
His contribution to mathematics was also of the first order, as the inventor
of theCartesian coordinate system and the founder of analytic
geometry, crucial to the invention of calculus and mathematical
analysis. He was also one of the key figures in the scientific revolution of
the 16th and 17th Centuries.
Using this process, which he detailed in his epochal "Discourse on the
Method" of 1637 and expanded in the "Meditations on First
Philosophy" of 1641, Descartes attempted to narrow down, by what is
sometimes called the method of doubt, what wascertain and what
contained even a shadow of a doubt. For example, he realized that he
could doubt even something as apparently fundamental as whether he had
a body (it could be that he was just dreaming of it or that it was
an illusion created by an evil demon), but he could not, under any
circumstances, doubt whether he had a mind or that he could think. He
followed this up with a pure, abstract thought experiment. He imagined an
evil spirit (or "deceiving demon") whose sole intention was tomislead him,
and asked whether there was anything about which the demon
would not be able to mislead him. His conclusion was the act of thinking,
that the demon could never make him believe that he was thinking when he
was not (because, after all, even a false thought is still a thought).
Having identified this single indubitable principle, that thought exists,
he then argued that, if someone was wonderingwhether or not he existed,
then the very act of thinking was, in and of itself, proof that he did in fact
exist: the famous "Je pense, donc je suis" ("I think, therefore I am") - the
similar statement in Latin, "Cogito ergo sum" is found in his
later "Principles of Philosophy". It is worth mentioning here that, by
"thinking", Descartes did not just mean conceptual thought, but all forms
ofconsciousness, experience, feelings, etc.
Having dispelled all doubt by this process, Descartes then worked to build up,
or reconstitute, the world again. But he was careful not to do this willy-nilly,
but only according to his own very strict rules, so that the "reconstituted
world" was not the same as the original one which he had dismantled piece
by piece due to doubts. The way he achieved this (which, it must be said,

appears from a modern viewpoint like something of a conjuring trick) was

to argue that among the contents of our (certain) consciousness was the idea
of God, which in itself he saw as proof of the existence of God. He then
argued that, if we have theoverwhelming impression of the existence of a
concrete world around us, as we do, then an omnipotent, omniscient and
omnibenevolent God would ensure that such a world does in fact exist for
us. Furthermore, he asserted that the essence of this physical world
was extension (that it takes up space), contrary to the extensionless world
of the mind.
Paradoxically, this was an essential step forward in 17th Century science as
it established a physical world which was of amathematical character and
permitted mathematical physics to be used to explain it. Also important is
that, as we have seen, although God was indispensible to Descartes'
method of arriving at a physical world, once such a world was accepted, it
was no longer necessary to involve God in the description and measurement
and explanation of how things work. Thus, the process of science was freed
from theological contraints and interference.
Descartes dismissed the senses and perception as unreliable, and to
demonstrate this he used the so-called Wax Argument. This revolves
around the idea that a wax object, which has certain properties of size,
colour, smell, temperature, etc, appears to change almost all of these
properties when it is melted, to the extent that it appears to our senses to be
a completely differentthing. However, we know that it is in fact still
the same piece of wax. Descartes concluded from this that the senses can be
misleading and that reason and deduction is the only reliable method of
attaining knowledge, which is the essence ofRationalism.
Descartes further argued that sensory perceptions come to him
involuntarily (not willed by him), and are therefore external to his senses
and therefore evidence of the existence of an external world outside of
his mind. He argued that the things in the external world
are material because God would not deceive him as to the ideas that are
being transmitted, and has given him thepropensity to believe that such
ideas are caused by material things. Because of this belief that God
is benevolent and does not desire to deceive him, he can therefore have
some faith in the account of reality his senses provide him.
Descartes believed that the human body works like a machine, that it has
the material properties of extension and motion, and that it follows
the laws of physics. The pieces of the human machine, he argued, are
like clockwork mechanisms, and that the machine could be understood
by taking its pieces apart, studying them, and then putting them back
together to see the larger picture (an idea referred to as Reductionism).
The mind or soul, on the other hand, is a non-material entity
that lacks extension and motion, and does not follow the laws of physics.
Descartes was the first to formulate the mind-body problem in the form in
which it exists today (see the section on Philosophy of Mind), and the first to

clearly identify the mind with consciousness and self-awareness, and to

distinguish this from the brain, which was the physical seat
of intelligence (Dualism). In his epistemological work in the "Discourse on
the Method", he had realized that, although he could doubt that he
possessed a body, he could not under any circumstances doubt that he
possessed a mind, which led him to conclude that the mind and the body
were two very different and separate things. His particular form
ofDualism (known as Cartesian Dualism) proposed that the mind controls
the body, but that the body also influences the otherwise rational mind
(such as when people act out of passion) in a kind of two-way interaction,
which he claimed, without much evidence, occurred in the pineal gland.
Gilbert Ryle later described this kind of Dualism (where mental activity carries
on inparallel to physical action, but where their means of interaction
are unknown or, at best, speculative) as the "ghost in the machine".
Although his own solution was far from convincing, this kind of Cartesian
Dualism set the agenda for philosophical discussion of the mind-body
problem for many years after Descartes' death.
It should be noted, however, that for all Descartes' innovation and boldness,
he does not abandon the traditional idea of God. He
defined "substance" (essentially meaning what the world really consists of)
as "that which requires nothing other than itself in order to exist", but he
concluded that the only true substance was God himself, because
everything else (from souls to material objects like the human body)
was dependent on God for its existence. He used his own variations of
the causal argument, theontological argument and the cosmological
argument for the existence of God in his "Meditations" (see the section
onPhilosophy of Religion), and the existence of God played a major role in
his validation of reason and in other parts of Descartes system. Given
the important rle God plays in his work, suggestions that Descartes was
really a closet atheist, and that he includes the arguments for the existence
of God as window dressing, appear extremely unlikley.
In mathematics, Descartes realized that a graph could be drawn to show
a geometrical interpretation of a mathematical function using points
known as Cartesian coordinates, and thereby founded analytic
geometry or Cartesian geometry (using algebra to describe geometry),
which was crucial to the subsequent development of calculus by Sir Isaac
Newton (1643 - 1727) and Gottfried Leibniz. He also invented the notation
which uses superscripts to indicate powers or exponents, and his rule of
signs is also a commonly used method to determine the number of positive
and negative zeros of a polynomial. It can be argued that his reflections
on mind and mechanism, impelled by the invention of the electronic
computer and by the possibility ofmachine intelligence, blossomed into
the Turing test of a machine's capability to demonstrate intelligence.
In optics, he showed by using geometric construction and the law of
refraction (also known as Descartes' law) that the angular radius of
a rainbow is 42 degrees. He also independently discovered the law of
reflection (that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection).

In physics, Descartes introduced (before Newton) the concept

of momentum of a moving body (what he termed the "amount of motion"),
which he defined as the product of the mass of the body and its velocity or
speed. His three "laws of nature" became the basis of Newton's later laws
of motion and the modern theory of dynamics: that each thing tries to
remain in the same stateand, once moved, continues to move; that all
movement is along straight lines; and that when a body comes into contact
with another body the combined "quantity of motion" remain
the same (his conservation of motion principle).
In an attempt to explain the orbits of planets, Descartes also constructed
his vortex theory which would become the most popular theory of
planetary motion of the late 17th Century (although subsequently
discredited). However, he continued to cling to the traditional mechanical
philosophy of the 17th Century, which held that everything physical in the
universe to be made of tiny "corpuscles" of matter (although,
unlike Atomism, the theory maintained that there could be no vacuum, just
a mass of swirling matter).

Concept of cogito
After establishing the reasons behind his radical skepticism, Descartes goes on to ask himself
what he can know. In other words, what new foundations can he replace the old ones with? He
quickly realizes that it is subjective knowledge about his self that is most reliable, and embarks
on an intellectual journey to establish a firmer understanding of this.
He begins with an argument known commonly as the Cogito. He comes to understand that if
he is capable of doubting which is precisely what he is doing then he must exist. He may
doubt everything else, may be deceived about the existence of all other things, but he must
necessarily exist. Cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am. Now, its important to note that
Descartes does not actually phrase his conclusion in this exact manner in the Meditations. It
was only later that he came to use the famous latin sentence to describe his findings. In fact,
his phrasing in the meditations might be preferable, in that he does not structure his thought

process in the manner of a syllogism (a premise followed by a conclusion). The reason for this
is simple; the statement I think therefore I am is an incomplete argument. There is a missing
second premise; all thinking things exist. Thus, cogito ergo sum might actually be doubted
in some way. However, Descartes responds to this by claiming that the Cogito is not, in fact, a
syllogism (a stance that is strengthened by the fact that, as said, he does not present it as
such in the Meditations). The conclusion is reached through an intuitive leap, rather than a
reasoned examination of two premises. It is, after all, absurd to say that something can think
and yet not exist at the same time.
After establishing the fact of his existence, Decartes goes on to ask himself what he is. He
eventually comes to describe himself as a thinking thing. But what is a thinking thing? The
easiest way to understand Decartes thoughts here is to look at his ideas regarding substance,
the essence of a substance, and the modes of a substance. A substance is defined as
something that is capable of existing independently of all things besides the sustaining power
of God (which Decartes believes is necessary for anything to exist). Lets look at the mind in
terms of these. Clearly, the mind can be viewed as a substance, since we can see it existing
independently (lets not worry about chemicals in the brain for the nonce). What is its essence,
though? Well, according to Decartes, the essence of mind is thought, which he describes in
terms of doubting, affirming, judging, etc. This makes sense a mind can be seen as
something that is defined by thought. The modes of the mind, then, are the various ways of
thinking I just mentioned (doubting, affirming, and so on and so forth).
So, Decartes has established that he is a thing that thinks, and he has achieved at least a
sketchy idea of what that means. He then starts to consider material objects in an attempt to
understand his mind even better, choosing to do this by examining a piece of wax. At first, the
wax is hard and solid, smelling slightly of flowers and tasting slightly of honey. It makes a
sound when he taps it with his finger. However, when its brought close to a flame it starts to
melt, changing in shape and size, losing all taste and smell, and it no longer makes a noise
when he hits it (as it has softened). And yet, even though his senses are perceiving something
owning entirely different properties to those the wax had earlier, he is still conscious of it as a
piece of wax. The same piece of wax, even. His senses do not tell him this, so he reasons that
the way he really perceives the wax is through his mind. What does he perceive it as? An
extended substance that is flexible and changeable*. This tells him something important about
the relationship between his mind and the external world, and it also tells him that his senses
are only of limited value. Naturally, without his senses he would not be aware of the wax at all,
but without a judging mind he would only have a very muddled understanding of it.
One of the conclusions that Descartes draws from his examination of the wax is that he can
never know anything better than his own mind. This is because, whenever he comes to
understand something about a material thing, such as its size or shape, he is also becoming
aware of the ability of his mind to perceive and understand that property. Whenever he learns
about material objects, then, he learns about his mind. But he can learn things about his mind
without learning anything new about the material world. Therefore, his mind is more readily
known to him than anything else. There is, however, one problem with this. What he learns
about his mind when examining the properties of an object his ability to perceive said
properties is in fact a property of his mind. However, Descartes himself regards properties as

being immaterial it is the essence of a thing that truly matters. So it would seem that his
conclusion here is not entirely solid.
This, then, is what Descartes views as the self; a thinking thing, as outlined above. There are
some further weaknesses to his arguments, but these deal mostly with particulars and I dont
want to deal with them too throroughly here. Suffice it to say that while his main points are
mostly sound, not all of his conclusions should be taken at face value (this can of course be
said of virtually everything, especially when one is dealing with philosophy). To fully appreciate
Descartes views on the self, however, an understanding of his thoughts on dualism another
topic he adresses in theMeditations- is neccessary. Ill be looking at these shortly.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) offers a pragmatic reason for believing in God:

even under the assumption that Gods existence is unlikely, the potential
benefits of believing are so vast as to make betting on theism rational. The
super-dominance form of the argument conveys the basic Pascalian idea, the
expectations argument refines it, and the dominating expectations argument
gives a more sophisticated version still.
Critics in turn have raised a number of now-classic challenges. (i) According
to

intellectualism,

deliberately

choosing

which

beliefs

to

hold

is

practically impossible. Intellectualism, however, appears to be not only

questionable but irrelevant. (ii) According to the many-gods objection,
Pascals wager begs the question and hence is irrational. It assumes that if
God exists then God must take a rather specific form, which few open-minded
agnostics would accept. Pascalians reply by invoking the notion of a genuine
option (which is not defined), by devising run-off decision theory (which is not
justified), by claiming that Pascal was understandably unaware of other
cultures (which is not true), and by appealing to generic theism (which does
not solve the problem).
(iii)

According

to

evidentialism,

Pascalian

reasoning

is

epistemically

irresponsible and henceimmoral. One development of this argument,

suggesting that God is an evidentialist, amounts to a variant of the manygods

objection.

Another

development,

suggesting

that we

should

beevidentialists, hinges on the outcome of larger moral theory. (iv) According

to various paradoxes, reference to infinite values is decision-theoretic nonsense.

WAGER ARGUMENT
Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the
existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Penses,
he wrote, "This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it." That is the only time
Pascal ever wrote a sentence like that, for he was one of the most sceptical philosophers who ever
wrote.
Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new "miracle
drug" that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved
friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were
freewouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to?
Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know
whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to doto ignore them or to take
the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?
Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets
left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you
are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend
a dollar on the good chance of winning a million?
No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in
God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to "bet" on God, even
if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win.
To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal
lived in a time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was
being ignored or sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth
century. Montaigne, the great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The
classic arguments for the existence of God were no longer popularly believed. What could the
Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both
the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third
ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief?
Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you
believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is
something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high
ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire
to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal
prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural lights."
Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red
chips to win red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth
about God's existence. The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly

happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of
calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that
case, you can still calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason
can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and
God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally.
Pascal says, "Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot
decide this question. [Remember that Pascal's Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos
separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come
down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?" The most powerful part of Pascal's
argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but
his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical,
uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing
is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already
committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships
that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home
and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The
agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but
stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether
this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude
unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the
waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late.
The Wager works because of the fact of death