Bennett Shinbein
Professor Hulsizer
Philosophy
Descartes: Meditation III Descartes explores possible arguments for the existence of god in “Meditation III.” Descartes is ultimately attempting to achieve his principal goal in establishing an incorrigible foundation for knowledge. He asserts that our senses are not designed to provide us with knowledge, but are designed to help us live our lives. He argues that the only way to secure knowledge is to have clear and distinct perceptions of things. Prior to “Meditation III,” Descartes discussed how he knew that he, himself, exists but that his clear and distinct perceptions of things needed to be validated by the existence of something outside himself that created the idea; essentially the existence of a God. He believed that we cannot perceive anything outside of our mind with any degree of certainty. He concluded that we can only be sure of our clear and distinct perceptions if God exists. In “Meditation III,” Descartes explored the relationship between formal and objective reality in proving the existence of God. Formal reality refers to the actual reality that everything in this world has. Objective reality refers to the reality of things represented through outside ideas or objects. Descartes concluded that if there is more objective reality than formal reality then there has to be something outside himself that created that idea. He concluded that because the idea of god did not originate within him, it must have been god who created the idea and therefore must exist. He also argues that, since he has a clear and distinct perception of god, that the idea of god has infinite objective reality and therefore is very likely to exist. Descartes argument, however, is not logically sound. Though some aspects of Descartes’ explanation for the existence of god make logical sense, his theory is very circular and somewhat contradicts itself. In “Meditation III,” Descartes shares his insight on how he believes that god exists because the idea of god, due to its infinite objective reality, had to originate from God (an existing being). He then goes on to conclude that the idea of god is innate and can’t be received like an adventitious idea. This is contradictory, because he initially says that god has to exist because the idea of god had to originate outside himself, but then goes on to say the idea is innate and that he was created with it already in him. The theory is also very circular because he asserts that clear and distinct perceptions can only be validated by proving the existence of god, but also asserts that we can only know god exists if we have a clear and distinct perception of the idea of god. Due to the unsound nature of his argument,
