The Rationalists: Descartes
Certainty: Self and God
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
1
Outline
Meditation 2:
1. The Cogito
2. I am a thinking thing
3. The piece of Wax
4. Conclusion
Meditation 3:
1. A general rule for truth: clear and distinct ideas
2. The existence of God (Proof 1)
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
2
Meditation 2: Introduction
Summing up:
1. Doubt: Radical, Hyperbolic, Methodological
2. No source of knowledge passed the test : senses – dream
argument, reason – evil genius
3. Doubtful hence considered as false: External world,
personal body, rational truths
Meditation 2:
Look at the title!!
“Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That it is Better
Known than the Body”
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
3
Meditation 2 – The Cogito
Prospect for research:
1. Certainty in any case
2. One single certainty would be enough: Archimedes
The Cogito:
1. Resists the Evil Genius Argument
2. Problems with interpretation:
- Inference or limit of the doubt
- genuine intellectual and subjective experience
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
4
Meditation 2 – I am a thinking thing
Question of Method: How am I to figure out what I am?
1. Against Definitions
2. The method of Doubt is universal – apply it here !
What did I used to think I am:
1. An well known body
2. Equipped with an incomprehensible soul
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
5
Meditation 2 – I am a thinking thing
What am I?
1. Not my body
2. A thinking thing !
Problem of interpretation: Thing = substance?
What is a thinking thing? Broad definition: any mental
activity (anything not body like), including sensations !
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
6
Meditation 2 – The piece of wax
The point of the passage: Look at the conclusion!!
But I need to realize that the perception of the wax is neither a
seeing, nor a touching, nor an imagining. Nor has it ever
been, even though it previously seem so; rather it is an
inspection on the part of the mind alone [...]. (33)
 So: the point of the passage: We know things through
the understanding, not through our senses and
imagination
Problem: how is this relevant to the claim that we know our
mind better than our body?
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
7
Meditation 2 – The piece of wax
Argument:
P1: The piece of wax can change;
P2: But what we call the piece of wax is still the same;
CC1: there is something I know of the wax which remains the
same when the piece of wax undergoes changes;
Unstated Premise: only unchanging aspects of something
constitute what I know truly of it;
P3: the sensitive qualities do not remain
CC2: the sensitive qualities are not what the piece of wax as I
truly know it;
P4: what remains is that it is extended, flexible and mutable;
CC3: Instead, I truly know as the piece of wax truly as:
extended, flexible and mutable
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
8
Meditation 2 – The piece of wax
With which faculty do I know the piece of wax?
- Not the senses
- Not the imagination
- Perception of the mind
Generalization:
Any sensation in fact relies on a judgment of understanding
Example: hats in the street
 We know everything through the understanding
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
9
Meditation 2 – The piece of wax
Do I know my mind better than my body?
- It does not seem to follow: distinction faculty / object:
I know better with my mind ≠ I know my mind better
- Possible hidden premise:
I know better what is distinct – i.e. of an unmixed nature
 Descartes has not shown his main claim
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
10
Meditation 2 – Conclusion
The Cogito: One single certainty as a subjective evidence
Problem with the Cogito: thinking thing and substance
The piece of wax: our mind takes part in the entirety of
knowledge, even the perception of sensible particulars
Problem with the piece of wax: we haven’t shown that we
know our mind better than our body, unless further
assumptions are made.
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
11
Outline
Meditation 2:
1. The Cogito
2. I am a thinking thing
3. The piece of Wax
4. Conclusion
Meditation 3:
1. A general rule for truth: clear and distinct ideas
2. The existence of God (Proof 1)
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
12
Meditation 3: Introduction
Summing up:
1. One single certainty
2. Importance of the Mind
Meditation 3:
1. Look at the title: “Concerning God; That He Exists”
2. Why proving the existence of God????
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
13
Meditation 3 – Clear and Distinct Ideas
General rule:
Everything that I very clearly and very distinctly perceive
is true
Argument
1. I am certain that I am a thinking thing
2. There is nothing that assures of this proposition is true
except a clear and distinct perception of it
3. Hence, I can be certain of everything that I perceive in the
same way, that is, clearly and distinctively
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
14
Meditation 3 – Why do we need God?
Clear and Distinct ideas:
1. Certain at the moment of the intuition
2. Doubtful when attention turned to Evil Genius
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
15
Meditation 3 – That God Exists
Descartes discusses the origin of our Ideas: Why?
1. we are stuck in our minds
2. what if we had an idea which requires that something
else exist?
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
16
Meditation 3 – That God Exists
First round: Do my ideas correspond to external things?
1. Three kinds of ideas: innate, adventitious, fictitious
2. What do I used to believe that adventitious ideas come
from external things?
a. Nature taught me? natural impulses = truth?
b. Independent of my will? Another faculty than will?
c. Resemblance with external objects? Sun!?
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
17
Meditation 3 – That God Exists
Second round: The argument from the objective reality of ideas
1. Three kinds of reality for ideas:
a. Material reality – all ideas are equally made of thought
b. Formal reality – ideas all differ in terms of what they
represent
c. Objective reality – ideas differ in terms of the degree of
reality of their object
Idea of God: greatest objective reality
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
18
Meditation 3 – That God Exists
Second round: The argument from the objective reality of ideas
(1. Three kinds of reality for ideas)
2. I cannot be the cause of the idea of God
a. Causal Principle – appeal to natural light
b. Two kinds of object for my ideas: (1) composite, (2)
corporeal substances, (3) God
c. I can be the cause of (1) and (2)
c. I cannot be the cause of (3)
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
19
Meditation 3 – That God Exists
Third round: God as the cause of my existence
Descartes’ cosmological argument
1. Candidates: (1) Myself, (2) my parents or anything less
than God, (3) God
2. Hyp (1): No, or else I could not conceive of my
imperfections
3. Objection: what if I have always exited? No, because
persistence in time is as demanding as creation (!)
4. Hyp (2): No, for otherwise infinite regress
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
20
Meditation 3 – Conclusion
The third meditation provides us with:
1. A general rule for finding actual truth : clear and distinct
intuitions
2. Proofs that God exists, in order to secure the persistence of
the truth of clear and distinct intuitions:
(1) From the objective reality of the idea of the infinite
(2) As the first non contingent cause of contingent
existence
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
21