Descartes: Meditations of First Philosophy

Descartes is a rationalist: the world around us is Descartes then concludes that physics,
misleading, our reasoning is the most astronomy, medicine and all other disciplines,
trustworthy. He wants to be absolutely certain which depend on the study of composite things,
about the foundations of his belief – what can are doubtful and their results are not absolute.
Descartes not doubt? Only studies like arithmetic and geometry that
Descartes believes that “once the foundations deal with the simplest and general things only,
of a building are undermined, anything built on contain something certain and indubitable. He
them collapses of its own accord; so I will go further grounds this by suggesting that in our
straight for the basic principles on which all my dreams, 2+3=5 is still the same, thus it seems
former beliefs rested” – the Archimedes point. impossible that such transparent truths should
Hyperbolic/Cartesian doubt: an extreme form of incur any suspicion of being false.
doubt, if anything can be doubted in any way,
the knowledge derived from it should be treated
as if it were false (but this is not the same as The malicious demon
regarding them as false). An omnipotent God made me the creature that I
am, but I do not know if he has deceived me.

The senses are not Furthermore, since I sometimes believe that

others go astray in cases where they think they
have the most perfect knowledge, I may
indubitable similarly go wrong everything I do mathematics
From time to time, Descartes has found that his or even something simpler. But God probably
senses are deceived, evidenced by when he would not deceive me in this way because he is
dreams and cannot distinguish is vivid dream supremely good. Yet I am deceived sometimes,
from reality, and when he perceives a straight and this is inconsistent with his supreme
stick in water to be bent. It is prudent, goodness. However I cannot doubt that he
according to Descartes, to never trust allows me to be deceived.
completely those that have deceived him even To grant God’s non-existence to please those
once. Therefore we should not trust our senses. who believe he is fiction, it would mean that
Descartes employs ‘hyperbolic doubt’ in a bid to Descartes has come to be in his present state
determine what cannot be doubted, in order to by fate or chance or a continuous chain of
find knowledge. Therefore he treats anything events. But since deception seem to be
that can be doubted or has a reason to be imperfections, the less powerful they make my
doubted as if it were false, until he finds original cause, the more likely it is that I am so
something indubitable – this will be our first clue imperfect as to be deceived all the time. Thus I
to knowledge. He will then find knowledge that should withhold my assent from these former
stems from that basis. beliefs.
Descartes proposes a malicious demon “of the
utmost power and cunning has employed all his
Scientific disciplines energies in order to deceive me”. In order for
him to be deceived, he must exist and therefore
that depend on he has further established an “I” who is being
deceived.
composite things are Evaluation Point: What empirical evidence is
there to prove that the malicious demon even

doubtful, but those exists? His beliefs are religiously based which
do not have solid grounds of proof. If the mind

that deal with the is a better knower, then the demon doesn’t do
anything – how would we be able to come up
with this realisation?
simplest things are
the most certain The cogito
Firstly, it must be admitted that the visions, Even if nothing sensory can be trusted, nor the
which come in sleep, must have been fashioned authorship of his thoughts, Descartes still knows
in the likeness of things that are real. Even if that he exists. To be able to think and doubt
these basic things such as heads, eyes and and convinced himself something, then he must
hands are imaginary it must be at least exist. Furthermore, if a malicious demon is
admitted that certain other even simpler and deceiving him, he must exist in order to be
more universal things are real. deceived, and if it does not exist, he is not
being deceived and therefore he is right in
believing he exists. Therefore as long as he
thinks, Descartes exists. world than the body
Evaluation Point: This argument is sometimes
seen as circular, or begging the question. The
expression “I think, therefore I am” already
or senses or
assumes there is an I to think in the first place.
Under Descartes’ sceptical methodology, all
imagination
things must be called into doubt, even the Descartes uses the ‘wax test’ to explain that
existence of I. It is tautological. Ultimately; physical features such as smell, feel and taste
however, this leaves a vacant universe without cannot be used in defining what wax is as they
any certainty, not even our own existence can all change yet, yet still be the same
(corporeal or otherwise) except for floating substance. He only knows of the nature of the
thoughts. wax only: that it is extended, flexible and
More, to make the inference ‘I exist’ from ‘I changeable. Furthermore, he cannot conceive
think’ seems to involve the very kind of logical the infinite possible shapes wax can take, and
process that Descartes doubts? Do all thoughts therefore imagination again should also not be
have thinkers? Can’t we doubt this assertion? the source of knowledge: “the nature of this
Perhaps he has only proved that thinking exists, piece of wax is no way revealed by my
but not us or even our minds (unless he defines imagination, but perceived by my mind alone.”
mind as what thinks, but this could simply be The fact that he can judge that the wax exists
giving language to it) proves that he exists, even though it is possible
Descartes’ reasoning that our senses have the wax doesn’t exist. Moreover, if his
deceived us once can be considered inductive. perception of the wax seemed more distinct
They may have been false before, but does that after he established not just by sight or touch
mean they are always? However, Descartes is but other considerations, he must know himself
only trying to argue that the mind is a better even more distinctly because every
‘knower’ than the senses. consideration whatsoever which contributes to
What happens when you doubt, doubt? Do you his perception cannot but established even
not doubt at all? More, reasonable doubt can more effectively the nature of his own mind.
only be partial, outing limits on the demon’s Therefore, knowledge gained by mental scrutiny
ability to deceive us; we can be wrong about is certain as opposed to knowledge derived
some things but not all things, to give us basis from sensory perception.
that we can correct ourselves and realise it was By extension of this argument, when he looks
a mistake. We need a basis of comparison. outside his window, he can only see hats and
Our realisation could be during a dream – this coats and his mind judges that they are men,
could be nonsensical. which could possibly be automatons. Therefore
sensory perception gives only partial
knowledge, the true grasp of knowledge is only
I am only a thinking done through the mind. Therefore the mind is a
better knower than the body, and we know our
thing mind more than anything else.
Evaluation Point: What if someone has never
He decides he is not a man (b/c leads to too perceived wax – surely they cannot perceive
many questions), not a body and not a soul. that the two different states are the same
Descartes is also certain that because he is thing? It would be problematic for Descartes’
uncertain about his body, but knows that he claim that we come to know things through
thinks and that his thoughts cannot be mental scrutiny because we can identify two
separated from him – the fact he can think, things of different physical features to be the
affirm, deny, is willing and unwilling and can same if a person is unable to identify the two
imagine, he must only be thoughts and nothing states of wax as the same piece. Does pure
else – that is all he knows. Descartes thus mental scrutiny actually give us more distinct
concludes that he is only a thinking thing. knowledge of the mind, or merely further our
Evaluation Point: He seems we are our experience of one of its operations? Perhaps it
inseparable from thoughts yet posits a self that is just inductive reasoning that we acknowledge
thinks. \There is fallacious jump from ‘I only the associations.
know that I’m a thinking thing” to “I know that
I’m only a thinking thing.’ Just because I only
know that I have dog, does that entail I know I
only have a dog?
Dualism
Dualism proposes that there are both non-
The mind is a better physical and physical substances, which are
separate from each other but can interact with

knower and each other and thus linked closely in some way.
It explains the notion of ‘qualia’ – the likeness of
things, and also how we have privileged access
understander of the to our minds that cannot be directly observed
somewhere else. It also allows for the idea that runs into the fundamental problem of how a
there is more after death since we have non- non-physical mind interacts with a physical
physical substances that carry on. body.
Evaluation Point: The interaction problem –
the dualism inferred by Descartes’ reasoning