Meditations on First Philosophy

“Now let us assume that we are asleep and that all these particulars, e.g. that we open our eyes, shake our head, extend our hands, and so on, are but false delusions; and let us reflect that possibly neither our hands nor our whole body are such as they appear to be.”

Descartes, to justify his doubt, addresses the possibility that he may be dreaming. The dream argument posits that one cannot differentiate between wakefulness and sleep, as in dreams one may also feel pain or emotions.

“I shall then suppose, not that God is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me.”

In another attempt to justify his doubting of all beliefs, Descartes moves to God. He hypothesizes that God is an evil genius who deceives the subject. This supposition allows him to call everything into question.

“But what follows from that? Am I so dependent on body and senses that I cannot exist without these? But I was persuaded that there was nothing in all the world, that there was no heaven, no earth, that there were no minds, nor any bodies: was I not then likewise persuaded that I do not exist?”

To doubt everything implies doubting one’s existence. In a similar move to his argument about the existence of a superior being, Descartes states that since we can doubt our existence, something must exist to do the doubting in the first place. 

“So that after having reflected well and carefully examined all things, we must come to the definite conclusion that this proposition: I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it.”

Since, to doubt one’s existence, one must exist, Descartes confirms that he exists. He states that every time he conceives of his being, such as when he conceived of it in his attempt to doubt it, a confirmation of self occurs.

“Let who will deceive me, He can never cause me to be nothing while I think that I am, or some day cause it to be true to say that I have never been, it being true now to say I am, or that two and three make more or less than five, or any such thing in which I see a manifest contradiction.”

Descartes presents the assertion “I am, I exist” as an undeniable truth regardless of whether we are being deceived. Descartes equates the truth of this realization to the truth of mathematics. 

“And in what way can this cause (of external reality) communicate this reality to it, unless it possessed it in itself? And from this it follows, not only that something cannot proceed from nothing, but likewise that what is more perfect—that is to say, which has more reality within itself—cannot proceed from the less perfect. And this is not only evidently true of those effects which possess actual or formal reality, but also of the ideas in which we consider merely what is termed objective reality.”

Descartes’s causal argument for the existence of God is presented here. For us to have a conception of something more perfect than us, something other than ourselves must have instilled the idea in us. Descartes supports this argument by arguing that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. As finite beings, we do not possess the ability to be the cause of an infinite effect, whereas God does insofar as He is infinite.

“It is this, that if the objective reality of any one of my ideas is of such a nature as clearly to make me recognize that it is not in me either formally or eminently, and that consequently I cannot myself be the cause of it, it follows of necessity that I am not alone in the world, but that there is another being which exists, or which is the cause of the idea.”

Upon realizing that his idea of God does not come from him, as he is not a sufficient cause, and thus must come from somewhere else, it follows that something other than himself exists. Further, this being must be infinite to be a sufficient cause of its own idea.

“By the name God I understand a substance that is infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if anything else does exist, have been created. Now all these characteristics are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of proceeding from me alone; hence, from what has already been said, we must conclude that God necessarily exists.”

Descartes presents his definition of God which, in turn, further convinces him that he could not have created these concepts. God’s attributes do not exist within him eminently or formally but instead reside within God who possesses His own objectivity and instills objectivity in all that He created.

“And it seems to me that I now have before me a road which will lead us from the contemplation of the true God (in whom all the treasures of science and wisdom are contained) to the knowledge of the other objects of the universe.”

With the understanding that the objectivity, and thus universal truth, of all things is conceived of within God, it follows that with knowledge of God comes knowledge of other things. Descartes refocuses his investigation to include external entities.

“They come from the sole fact that since the will is much wider in its range and compass than the understanding, I do not restrain it within the same bounds, but extend it also to things which I do not understand: and as the will is of itself indifferent to these, it easily falls into error and sin, and chooses the evil for the good, or the false for the true.”

If God is perfect, how does one explain error? Descartes argues that, while our understanding is finite, our will is infinite. This relation allows for error to arise from the subject’s susceptibility to render uninformed judgments as they like.

“And although possibly (or rather certainly, as I shall say in the moment) I possess a body with which I am very intimately conjoined, yet because, on the one side, I have a clear and distinct idea of myself inasmuch as I am only a thinking and un-extended thing, and as, on the other, I possess a distinct idea of body, inasmuch as it is only an extended and unthinking thing, it is certain that this I (that is to say, my soul by which I am what I am), is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body, and can exist without it.”

Descartes posits that the soul can exist without the body. The soul is immortal and indivisible whereas the body is mortal and divisible. Further, the soul grasps modes of substances that pertain to pure mathematics whereas the body remains corpse-like. Yet, Descartes concedes, the soul is inherently and intimately bound up with the body.

“And although in approaching fire I feel heat, and in approaching it a little too near I even feel pain, there is at the same time no reason in this which could persuade me that there is in the fire something resembling this heat any more than there is in it something resembling pain.”

Descartes argues that heat and pain are not objectively present within the fire. Rather, they appear in the mind as useful truths proposed by nature and are a testament to God’s goodness.

“But certainly although in regard to the dropsical body it is only so to speak to apply an extrinsic term when we say that its nature is corrupted, inasmuch as apart from the need to drink, the throat is parched; yet in regard to the composite whole, that is to say, to the mind or soul united to this body, it is not a purely verbal predicate, but a real error of nature, for it to have thirst when drinking would be hurtful to it. And thus it still remains to inquire how the goodness of God does not prevent the nature of man so regarded from being fallacious.”

The nature of the body is discussed. It is in the body’s nature to feel parched when it is thirsty, and to feel otherwise, such as to have thirst while drinking, would be contrary to its nature. Yet, the mind is subject to error. Descartes explains this dilemma by stating that we must take the subject as existing within the collective and that we can correct our errors.