Jeff 
Philosophy
TH 1:30 
May 8, 2000 

Descartes Meditations and Mind Body Distinction

There is no doubt that Renee Descartes was one of the most influential thinkers of his time. His brilliant views of mathematics and philosophy have been known to inspire many great thinkers for generations to come. After he wrote Meditations on the First Philosophy, many subsequent philosophers took his took his arguments as a starting point for their views, and earlier writers were overlooked (Medieval elements in Descartes 1). We will look at the following concepts: A summary of Descartes meditations, How religion and history ties into Descartes philosophy, and arguments against some of his views. Descartes wrote a philosophical work entitled "Meditations on the First Philosophy: In Which the Existence of God and the Distinction Between Mind and Body are Demonstrated". The purpose of his meditation was to find if there was a distinction between mind and body, and to try and find an answer regarding the existence of god. This was all to be done, as discussed in his first meditation, by systematically doubting everything he knew so that he could hopefully discover a firm foundation unto which he would build his knowledge. "Descartes proposes to systematically follow a process of doubt. The doubt is not a simply common sense one, though, as when I doubt whether black cats are harbingers of bad luck. Instead, his doubting process is a philosophical one, and sometimes called 'hyperbolic' (or exaggerated) doubt where he proposes to doubt anything which has some reason to doubt" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 3). Descartes starts his doubting experiment by doubting those qualities that we obtain through the senses. He first doubted qualities of objects which involved only our senses , such as feeling, touching, seeing, tasting and smelling, and then he considered doubting our ideas of mathematics. In order to do this he said that an evil genius would have to be deceiving him in everything he has ever known. In the second meditation, Descartes discovers that it is impossible for the evil genius to convince him that he does not exist. "Is there not a God, or whatever I may call him, who puts into me the thoughts I am now having?…Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. …let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something" (Baird 25). This brings forth the famous saying "I think, therefore I am" or "cogito, ergo sum" as was said in the original Latin version. This is the firm foundation in which Descartes builds the rest of his meditations. In Descartes third meditation, Descartes argues for the existence of God and that God is not a deceiver. In summary he argues this: "We have an idea of infinite perfection. The idea we have of ourselves entails finitude and imperfection. There must be as much reality in the cause of any idea as in the idea itself (the principle of sufficient reason) Therefore, the idea we have of infinite perfection originated from a being with infinite perfection, and this being is God" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 7). In Descartes fourth meditation, he explains how God cannot be responsible for our mistakes and the origin of human mistakes. He rejects God being the source of human error because he knows that God is not a deceiver. He says that our will sometimes extends beyond our knowledge and this is why we error. He says God is not responsible for this because he merely allows us to make bad judgment calls, than actually cause us to make these mistakes. In the fifth meditation, Descartes presents another argument for God's existence. He tells us how he can imagine two and three dimensional shapes, with clear and distinct attributes that need to belong to them. In the same way we can have a mere idea of God (a perfect being) we can arrive at the necessary attributes that belong to him. So in summary his argument for God is this: "I have an idea of a supremely perfect being. The idea of this being necessarily entails every perfection. Existence is a perfection. Therefore, the idea of a supremely perfect being entails existence (that is, a supremely perfect being exists)" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 10). In the sixth meditation, Descartes aims to prove the existence of material objects and that the mind is distinct from the body. In summary his argument for material objects is: "I know clearly and distinctly that there is in me a passive faculty which receives perceptions from an active source. This active source of perception is either me, God, or external objects. I am not that active source since such perceptions are not willfully produced and does not involve (my true essence). God does not implant ideas of perception in me since this would be deception. Therefore, external objects are the active source of perceptions" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 12). In regards to the distinction of the soul from the body Descartes says "nothing can be in me, that is to say, in my mind, of which I am not aware," and this "follows from the fact that the soul is distinct from the body and that its essence is to think" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 25). Descartes goes on to say that the cause of such ideas could not possibly be within him, since they are produced without his cooperation and often against his will, so it is definitely from a substance distinct from him. He also tells us since God is not a deceiver, and so the ideas must come from corporeal things. We know that Descartes meditations were written in order to explore the existence of God and the distinction of mind body. Although, many people do not know that many of his arguments stemmed from previous medieval thinkers, and that Descartes had constructed his arguments using parts of previous philosophy when he saw fit. It is also true that Descartes was a devout Catholic. He had no desire to offend the Catholic church. Descartes dedicated his meditations to faculty of Sorbonne, and by doing so he was announcing that his philosophy was consistent with traditional Catholic theology. Looking back at another work of Descartes 'Le Monde' we can find that the fear of proposing new ideas was prevalent at this time as stated in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Le Monde.. defended a heliocentric view of the universe. That same year the Catholic Church condemned Galileo's Dialogue (1632). Descartes did not think Galileo's views were prejudicial to religion and he worried that his own views might be censured" (14). Cautioned by Galileo's fate, Descartes proposed his ideas diplomatically. It is said that Descartes God is already known to be omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent; we should take this into consideration when we review his work later. It is also important we look at where Descartes may have obtained his past knowledge and where he may have biased it towards his religion. When Descartes arrives at the conclusion, I think, therefore I am, it is not a completely new idea which he has stumbled across. In fact we see a parallel statement used by St. Augustine in De Trinitate XV.xii.21: "…Perhaps you are asleep, and do not know it… Nor can the academic again say, in confutation of this knowledge: Perhaps you are mad, and do not know it… but he who is mad is alive. Therefore he who says he knows he is alive, can neither be deceived nor lie. Let a thousand kinds, then, of deceitful objects of sight be presented to him who says, I know I am alive; yet he will fear none of them, for he who is deceived yet is alive" (Medieval elements in Descartes 4). Also another similar passage is in "The City of God, book XI, c.26" this passage again stated in Medieval elements article as: "In the face of these truths, the quibbles of the skeptics lose their force. If they say; 'What if you are mistaken?' -well if I am mistaken, I am" (4). In other words it is saying if I am doubting, I exist, or since I am doubting which inevitably is thinking, I therefore exist. In the third meditation, he proposes his first argument of God, seeing that he has an idea of God as a most perfect being, and this holds the most objective reality compared to those things which are corporeal. He concludes that the idea of God contains objectively such a high degree of reality that only God could have possibly caused it, and therefore God exists. As it was said in the Medieval Elements article, Descartes takes an initial idea that was brought about in Scotus and Ockham; Philosophical Writings, where esse objectivum is translated "being as a thought object" and Descartes then adds on to this concept that we should rank those items of most objective reality and we will see that a spiritual being contains a higher rank than material beings (Medieval Elements in Descartes 7). Descartes takes an idea that already exists and appends onto a new concept. It is shown here again in the Medieval Elements essay: "He also says that the cause of an idea containing a certain degree of objective reality must contain at least the corresponding degree of formal reality. This seems to be a new principle, and it is the basis of his first argument for God's existence" (7). Descartes argument for the existence of God in the fifth meditation uses Descartes own beliefs added on to a previous philosopher Duns Scotus. Descartes argument said that he had a perfect idea of God, perfection entailed existence, and therefore God exists. We see a parallel argument from Scotus, and a different interpretation from Descartes: "This argument is perhaps an echo of Scotus's argument that if a most perfect conceivable being is possible then it must actually exist-Scotus means because there is no other way for it to be possible, but Descartes argues that it must exist because its infinite power enables it to produce itself. So power is here the key attribute which binds the idea of this being with a coherent, non-fictitious, true and immutable nature, such that we affirm of it whatever is contained in its concept, including, notably, actual existence (Medieval Elements 9). Now that there is a fair amount of information about Descartes adding to previous medieval philosophers; I will form some opposing views of his meditations and the conclusions he draws from them. I will do this by stating my own points of view on some of his arguments, using other people's points of view against Descartes, and questioning Descartes credibility in general. Starting with the first meditation, we see that Descartes is concerned about finding the truth, using a process of doubting everything. When he does this he is searching for a firm foundation to build some truths upon. He find the truth that he cannot doubt that he is doubting. Not even if an evil spirit is deceiving everything around him, the fact that he is thinking means he exists. Although, I would like to question this for the moment. Descartes believes that even if everything he sees and knows is nothing more than a dream, he is still an object that exists. Yet I would question how this existence is defined now that the person is the evil spirits dream. The person cannot have free will because the evil spirit is dreaming every aspect of the person, even his thoughts. So it does not seem so clear and distinct that our thoughts are really our own thoughts if the evil spirit is dreaming them. On top of this, the evil spirit, which Descartes uses in place of God, for fear that using God as a deceiver may cause conflict to his religious counterparts, is considered evil because he is to be deceiving us. Although, if by possibility this evil spirit is dreaming us, then we cannot hold the suspicion that he is deceiving us. We cannot hold this suspicion because one who dreams is not considered as using the dream as a tool to purposively deceive and rather the dream just takes place within the mind without the dreamer's control. Yet elements of control exist within the dream for unknown reason, in which the dreamer can actively create plots with or without his knowledge. In any case, this argument for the possibility that we have always been a dream, seems to be a fair argument against the existence of ones self. I would now like to bring in some thoughts on cause and effect and two famous philosophers, David Hume and Charles Pierce. David Hume says that it is impossible for us to find an effect directly from it's cause. We can see an infinite amount of responses from a cause, such as for example hitting a ball with a bat, there are so many possible directions the ball can travel, that we cannot be sure just from it's cause that we will know the effect, no matter how closely we observe the situation. He also tells us that our knowledge of effects comes from our past experience and past knowledge. In this sense, all that we know is given to us through experience. Charles Peirce takes this position also as written in the essay Charles Peirce and Rene Descartes: "Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object" ( 2). This means that whatever we know, even words, have to do with the experience we have already had with them. Now getting back to Descartes, Descartes says he has a view of God as being omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, yet if his definition of God comes from prior experience, and we can break the components of God down into other more simple ideas like "all" and "knowing", or saying God is "perfection", all of these can be broken down into prior experiences. In order to understand these words we must have some experience of them, such as someone explaining what they mean. Perfection could be seen, by simply looking at a picture that matches or closely matches what it purports to show in reality. If it is not exact, a person could tell you that perfection would be a perfect match of the picture to reality, or perfection can be seen as a program that someone writes in which the next person says, your program is good but would be perfect if it ran at the speed of X. So perfection can be a term that means without mistakes, or to ones own belief of what seems best. These components that Descartes wants us to believe come directly from God, can easily have been said to come from experience. The problem I'm trying to point out here is that Descartes goes into his mission of doubting everything, yet he brings in knowledge of past experience. Descartes would say that God is an innate idea because we have an idea of infinite perfection, and the idea we have of ourselves is finite and imperfect, and using the principle of sufficient reason, there must be as much reality in the cause of any idea as in the idea itself. Therefore this idea could have only come from God. Although if the idea of perfection is one that no one agrees on, then it is impossible for him to say that we have an idea of infinite perfection. If the idea of perfection is to mean without mistakes, then I still question this because he seems to be saying something along the lines of what Leibniz said that this world is the best of all possible worlds. It seems as though Descartes could not go into his mission of doubting everything without bringing in some things he already thought certain, such as the omnipotence and omniscient and perfect nature of God, all of these which are in my opinion are discovered through past experience. Descartes seems to believe that God would not deceive us, but to me I'm not quite sure I understand why God can not deceive us. Whether or not God is perfect is irrelevant. Even if God is perfect he can still deceive us. I would say that this questioning eventually ties into whether or not God is benevolent, and the problem of evil. The last thing I will question is Descartes credibility. I do believe that Descartes was an incredibly influential and one of the most inspiring philosophers of all time. I wonder though whether we can say he is credible in what he says. The only true reason I question this is because he seems to fall back on his religious beliefs. It is true that Descartes was a person whom "like the humanists, rejected religious authority in the quest of scientific and philosophical knowledge" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1). Although it is also true that he feared the church as he saw the fate of Galileo when he proposed the idea of a heliocentric view of our universe. If he is entering a meditation on the existence of God and the distinctness of mind and body, and he is entering it in the efforts to prove it as he says in the dedication "…once the arguments in the book proving that God exists and that the mind is distinct from the body have been brought, as I am sure they can be… you may be will to declare as much, and make a public statement to that effect" (Baird 17), and he is fearful of discovering an answer which would be contrary to what the church would like to believe (such as Galileo did), it seems to me that he is entering with a bias. The last question of credibility I have towards his arguments is that of him being religious himself. If he were to make his arguments more effective he would have doubted his own religion and thus have used actual doubt instead of hypothetical doubt that he chooses to use to make sure the church accepts his mission. The difference between the two is that a "speculative skeptic merely uncovers theoretical problems (using hypothetical doubt) and an actional skeptic continues by recommending a course of action. With religious beliefs in particular, actional skepticism was viewed as more dangerous as it might recommend that act as though there were no God. However, Descartes only proposes theoretical doubt. In any event, he revises his doubt so not to run counter to traditional Christian belief…" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 5). I would really like to fully trust that Descartes was free of bias in all of his meditation, but this is difficult to do with all that was said, still Descartes made some great discoveries in his work. Works Cited Descartes, Renee. Meditations. Ed. Forrest E. Baird, et al. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, 2000. "Descartes' Epistemology." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 7 May. 2000. Online. Internet. Available http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/ Kileullen, R.J. Week 11: Medieval Elements in Descartes. 7 May. 2000. Online. Internet. Available http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/z3611.html "Rene Descartes." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 7 May. 2000. Online. Internet. Available http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/descarte.htm