Thursday, October 3, 2013
A God Chasing His Tail?
Antoine Arnauld (among others) famously accuses Descartes of arguing in a circle: the principle of clear and distinct ideas requires a non-deceiving God to validate it, but the proof of a non-deceiving God requires the principle of clear and distinct ideas. Is Arnauld correct? If not, why not? If not, at what cost?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the bigger picture, I would agree with Arnauld. It is true that while Descartes' arguments make sense and are generally true, he can be very slippery and sneaky with his reasoning and justification. For example, in his Cogito Ergo Sum argument, Descartes assumes he doesn't exist, meaning that he cant think, and argues that because he CAN think, he CAN'T not exist. While true in principle, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the details of the argument (from the viewpoint of a philosopher). What if the only reason he can "think" is because he's a computer simulation? What even is the "I" in "I think, therefore I am?" Does it mean simply that there is some conscious form of being that somehow exists, or does it mean Descartes in full, including his physical body and mind?
ReplyDeleteIn justification of his Cogito argument, Descartes argues his famously accused scenario stated in the blog post. One part of me wants to believe Descartes simply because the two arguments are very concise and compact and they make sense when you don't think incredibly hard. The other part of me, however, thinks incredibly hard and says "If the argument is circular and no clear end point can be determined, does the argument hold water at all?" It all boils down the the famous Chicken and Egg scenario. In order for the chicken to exist, it would need to hatch from an egg. In order for the egg to exist, however, a chicken would have to have laid it – but where did that mother chicken come from? No matter how hard one thinks, there is no possible answer that can solve this riddle. The only thing I can think of that could clarify the literal situation of the chicken and egg is if an actual scientific experiment validated that one of the two did indeed come first. It is impossible, however, to apply a similar scientific experiment to Descartes' argument. Philosophically speaking, there is no historical or scientific evidence buried in the tectonic plates that can determine that in order to think true thoughts, a higher being must exist. For these reasons, Arnauld is correct in doubting Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum argument.
For clarification, I specify "philosophically speaking" because a scientist would argue "We don't require a god in order to think; thoughts occur because of electrical signals exchanged by the ganglia of the brain." This would seemingly disprove Descartes' circular claim. A philosopher, however, would retort with "How do we know that the brain is even real? What if the god that you just denounced is tricking us in a Matrix-like scenario in which we believe science is real, but in fact it is just an illusion?"
Well don't forget, even if you are thinking because you're a super computer program, you still exist. You are just a program in reality rather than a human being but you still exist.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that Arnauld is wrong. A non- deceiving God requires the principle of clear and distinct ideas for his validation, but clear and distinct ideas doesn't necessarily require a non- deceiving God to justify the ideas. To prove that God is non- deceiving, one needs to take into consideration the phycological effect of God. One needs to consider the thoughts that they think as a whole. If God is perfect, why do humans make mistakes? And why would he allow humans to think thoughts that are imperfect? If God was non-deceiving, how can life be so difficult and complicated sometimes? With how life is, it is hard to think of a God that isn't deceiving. If God is non-deceiving, then life would be straight forward. Everything would be simple and answers wouldn't be so hard to find. Clear and distinct ideas do not require a non-deceiving God. If a non-deceiving God validates these thoughts, then the thoughts aren't originated by a person, but by God himself. When one is able to take into consideration life, with all of its hardships and potential setbacks, one would be able to have a clear mind. With a non-deceiving God, one's thoughts would be sculpted by God himself because of his own perception. I think that thoughts will be true only if there is a deceiving God. Non-deceiving makes God sound perfect and this isn't possible. God is the creator of everything and this includes the thoughts of man. With allowing humans the opportunity to make mistakes and face hardships in life, he is being deceitful and God has the opportunity to make everything perfect. Through his writings, Descartes clearly thinks in this circular way. There is no doubt that in most of his arguments, he tries to bring his ideas back to an original statement. I think it is inaccurate to state that God is non-deceiving and if God actually is non- deceiving, it would be impossible for one's thoughts to realize it as it would almost be God's opinions planted into the mind of man. It is clear in Descartes' argument that if you don't have the first part of the argument, the second doesn't exist. Descartes' believes that God is perfect but it is unfair to just have that assumption. If God is perfect then our thoughts would be perfect and flawless. You would also have to take into consideration the idea of deception and the pure intentions of god. With this idea of God, it is hard to separate what is actual thought and what is thought that God has, in essence, planted?
ReplyDeleteI think that this point that Arnauld brings up is where Descartes truly begins to falter. It is true that as it stands, Descartes is arguing in a circle – it would not be possible to prove either of these points, because they each require proof of the other. You can’t build a bridge that somehow supports itself; you need something else to anchor it to. These anchors are what Descartes truly lacks. He needs a way to prove a non-deceiving God without clear perception, or a way to prove clear perception without a non-deceiving God.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem that Descartes runs into is that there really is no way to prove either one without the other. Any argument you make for the presence of a benevolent God has to be based on the fact that your perceptions are accurate and you can make fair judgments on these perceptions. Then, the statement “Sure, but what if there’s a higher being deceiving you right now” can counter the argument that you can make accurate perceptions?”. This is kind of a bummer.
In my opinion, and this may seem like a cop-out or a defeatist mentality, there’s no way to prove that there is a benevolent, all powerful God, there is no way to prove that we can make accurate judgments of our reality, and there’s no way to prove that we have any knowledge whatsoever. But, a follow up question, what does it matter? All of the knowledge that we have right now is based of the reality that we perceive to be true, this might not be the “true” reality, but it’s the one we find ourselves in currently. As long as our knowledge is relevant to this reality, it’s all we really need, from a realistic standpoint. It would be nice to know that our knowledge is always true, but it’s not a necessity. So, although Descartes goes in a circular argument, it’s hard to blame him for it. In his time, disregarding the existence of God would have been an extreme measure to take, and there is no real way of skirting this issue.
Arnauld’s accusation that Descartes is arguing in a circle is definitely an objection that needs to be raised. Descartes argues that in order for him to clearly and distinctly perceive things, there must be a god. And that god can exist only if he can truly perceive things. And therefore God must exist, because he can distinctly and clearly perceive God. Now as one can clearly imagine, this is the definition of circular logic. The truth of the conclusion is based entirely on a premise based on the conclusion.
ReplyDeleteDescartes then attempts a reply which essentially boils down to the fact that the existence of God is only required for the existence of true memory. Such that, if he clearly and distinctly perceives things that have been recalled after the argument in which they were proved, there must be a God in order to keep these recollections completely true. To me this sounds as if Descartes is more dodging the question than addressing it, as he claims that a central point in his concept of knowledge was only relevant to the idea of recalling said knowledge. As this was not a point addressed in his original article, it seems fishy to me at the very least.
To conclude, Arnauld’s concern with Descartes argument of God and knowledge is understandable and certainly important. It seems that Descartes is in fact using circular logic to try to prove his point, and in his response he does not answer the objection in the slightest.
Arnauld’s accusation that Descartes is arguing in a circle is definitely an objection that needs to be raised. Descartes argues that in order for him to clearly and distinctly perceive things, there must be a god. And that god can exist only if he can truly perceive things. And therefore God must exist, because he can distinctly and clearly perceive God. Now as one can clearly imagine, this is the definition of circular logic. The truth of the conclusion is based entirely on a premise based on the conclusion.
ReplyDeleteDescartes then attempts a reply which essentially boils down to the fact that the existence of God is only required for the existence of true memory. Such that, if he clearly and distinctly perceives things that have been recalled after the argument in which they were proved, there must be a God in order to keep these recollections completely true. To me this sounds as if Descartes is more dodging the question than addressing it, as he claims that a central point in his concept of knowledge was only relevant to the idea of recalling said knowledge. As this was not a point addressed in his original article, it seems fishy to me at the very least.
To conclude, Arnauld’s concern with Descartes argument of God and knowledge is understandable and certainly important. It seems that Descartes is in fact using circular logic to try to prove his point, and in his response he does not answer the objection in the slightest.
I believe Antoine Arnold is completely correct in his attack of Descartes argument for the existence of a non-deceiving God. His logic is completely circular, asserting God validates the truth of clear perception while clear and distinct perception proves the existence of God. Due to his reasoning the Cartesian circle proves neither the existence of god nor the truth of clear and distinct perceptions. However, the failure of Descartes argument goes back even further. I do believe that I can validate my own existence through thought, and that the two true statements of “I exist” and “I am a thinking thing” can be established as foundational beliefs. Yet, the jump made from this defeat of skepticism to the “general rule” that all I clearly and distinctly perceive is true, is an illogical one. In his attempt to prove the general rule using the Cartesian Circle, Descartes further disclaims his own credibility with his ridiculous assertions. He then makes the argument that anything he clearly and distinctly perceives is true if he cannot doubt his own logic, and further the existence of God makes his memories of things clearly and distinctly perceived true. In my opinion, this counter is a nonsensical attempt to counter Arnauld that shatters his own credibility. He avoids rather than rectifies the original flaw in his validation of the general rule and god’s existence, and his argument suffers as a cost. Further, this argument, meant to break the Cartesian circle, only serves to counter his original idea of skepticism, and a move is made from skepticism to infallibility. Descartes entire argument falls through around this point, when he uses circular reasoning and then is unable to create a new argument that proves God’s existence and further asserts humans not are infallible.
ReplyDeleteAntoine Arnauld’s view that Descartes is arguing in a circle is correct and makes Descartes’s argument for God’s existence invalid. This is very costly to Descartes’s argument for God’s existence and makes his entire project invalid. Arnauld is correct that Descartes is making a circular argument that makes it impossible for God to exist by using the evidence provided in this argument. He states that the principle of clear and distinct ideas requires a non-deceiving God, but that a non-deceiving requires the principle of clear and distinct ideas. This argument contradicts itself and disproves Descartes’s argument for God’s existence.
ReplyDeleteArnauld is correct that Descartes is arguing in a circle and it makes Descartes’s argument for God’s existence fall apart. Descartes essentially disproves his own argument for God’s existence because he states that God can only under a certain unproven circumstance. There is no proof that, as Descartes asserts, the principle of clear ideas is conducive to a non-deceiving God. There is also no proof to the opposite claim of that, not only making this a circular argument; but an incorrect argument based on non-factual evidence. So not only is Descartes’s argument a circular one, is argues against itself and disproves its own points.
Arnauld’s point that Descartes makes a circular argument is true but incomplete. Arnauld does not address the fact that it disproves the existence of God as Descartes argues. By making an argument to prove God’s existence, Descartes actually disproves God’s existence.