Précis of the Fourth Meditation (Truth and Falsehood)
1. After practising his meditating, Descartes now finds it easier to concentrate on that
which is ‘purely intelligible’ to the mind, in other words to just reason about things. It
is clear that he exists while he is thinking; that God exists; that Descartes’ existence
relies on God. Knowledge of God can lead to greater knowledge – the ‘treasures of
the sciences and of wisdom’.
2. He notes that since fraud and deception involves imperfection, God (who is wholly
perfect) is not a deceiver.
3. Descartes experiences the faculty of judgement in himself. This faculty is a gift
from God and, as such, can be relied upon to deliver the truth (God would not wish
him to be mistaken since this is deceitful).
4. That said, how can he explain the obvious fact that he has made mistakes? What is
the source of these errors? He reflects that he is part-way along a spectrum running
from God (all perfections) to nothingness (complete absence of perfections). He is a
mixture of part-God, part nothingness and it is unsurprising if the latter gives rise to
error, imperfect as it is. Certainly, Descartes’ errors are no fault of God’s – they
could merely result from the fact that Descartes’ faculty for judging correctly is not
infinite.
5. But this is not a full explanation since error is not simply an opposite of perfection.
Rather, it is a lack of some knowledge ‘it seems I ought to possess’. Surely a perfect
God would have created Descartes’ mind such that it always worked perfectly; that
God would want Descartes to find truth? Is it a possibility that it is somehow better
that Descartes makes mistakes?
6. When this thought strikes him, Descartes acknowledges that he should not be
surprised if God’s ways remain mysterious to him - God’s mind being such a superior
article compared to Descartes’. This alone persuades him to abandon any
examination of God’s purpose (‘the whole class of final causes’) for the world.
7. Considering that God’s aim is for the best, then Descartes cannot just consider
himself: this best might emerge from the interaction of all the parts of the world
considered together rather than individually. Even though Descartes hasn’t yet
proved to himself that anything exists apart from himself and God, nonetheless, God
might have created other things about which Descartes will never know.
8. On deeper reflection, Descartes notes that the source of the errors he has within
him depend on two things which always happen together when making a judgement:
his faculty of knowing (understanding or intellect); his free will. Knowing alone
cannot lead him into error since this is merely the conceiving of the ideas of things. It
is the affirming or denying of what presents itself to his judgement that counts (his
free will, in other words). His faculty for knowing (or power of reasoning) is perfect
in that it will deliver the truth (eg the Cogito, the knowledge that God exists).
9. God has also given him a will (or freedom of choice) which is unlimited. In this
respect, he has a capacity which is like God’s and persuades him that his nature and
God’s nature are aligned. This although God is greater, with more power: nonetheless
it appears to Descartes that he also has infinite free will. This free will consists
merely in choice of one course rather than another. It isn’t necessary that there
always be a choice for the will – when moved towards certainty (as in the Cogito)
there is no choice for the will: Descartes (like any reasoning mind) is forced to accept
the truth. This in not a fault in the will. Rather, it is a fault in our knowledge if we do
experience the freedom to choose – if we truly knew then we would (as in the Cogito)
not have to exercise the will at all.
10. The power of the will is a perfect gift from God, and so is the power of
understanding. The errors he makes arise from his will ranging over things he does
not understand. And given that the understanding is needed if the will is to choose
wisely, it is unsurprising that the will sometimes gets it wrong and chooses the wrong
course: Descartes errs or sins.
11. He gives as an example of this what he has recently discovered: his understanding
told him that he was a thinking thing, and shortly afterwards his will to believe this
was very great indeed. Conversely, he was also presented with the idea that there is a
material world which exists too which may, or may not, of the same stuff that he
consists in. His understanding has yet to persuade him either way [monist or dualist]
and so his will to believe could still go either way.
12. This doubt (‘indifference’ or still being open to choosing) about what to believe
extends to all things of which the understanding has no knowledge – including things
about which we can only conjecture.
13. So, he resolves to judge nothing which he does not understand ‘clearly and
distinctly’ so that he will be immune from error. Lack of knowledge comes from the
way Descartes uses the gift of understanding which God has given him rather than the
gift itself.
14. He is thankful for the few gifts he has received from God - even if the gift of the
will he has been given is infinite and thus allows the possibility of Descartes making
mistakes. The mistakes made cannot be traced back to God since they are due to the
agent’s neglect rather than God’s Will. The imperfections of erring fall squarely on
Descartes not employing his understanding as wisely as he might, but by being rash in
his thinking.
15. He cannot complain that God did not give him understanding and free will that
were co-extensive (so ruling out error altogether): Descartes would not want less free
will than he has
16. Nor should he complain that God is complicit in Descartes’ errors. His errors
stem from a lack (a privation). And since God lacks nothing, they cannot logically
stem from Him. The errors come from Descartes judging outside the sphere of his
knowledge. Yes, God could have made Descartes incapable of error but it is
undeniable that it remains a possibility that the universe may be better for having in it
parts (such as Descartes) which are not immune from error.
17. He can avoid error not just by only judging within his sphere of knowledge. He
can also save himself from error (or, at least, from as many errors) by abstaining from
making a judgement when his knowledge is not extensive enough.
18. Finally, this meditation has made clear that the source of his errors is Descartes
alone but that knowledge of the truth is possible – and that ‘clear and distinct
perception’ lets him know when this is arrived at. He resolves to be diligent in
restricting judgements to within his sphere of knowledge in future.