Third Meditation

General rule for acquiring further knowledge: (RULE) “whatever I perceive very clearly and
distinctly is true”

1. I know that I exist as a thinking thing

2. Having ‘a clear and distinct perception’ that I exist = enough to know that I exist
3. If could C&D perceive that p when p untrue, then C&D perception of p would not be enough
to know p
4. Therefore: (RULE) If I clearly and distinctly perceive p then p is true

Scales of reality

 Formal reality: Infinite substance > finite substance > mode of substance
 Objective reality: Idea of infinite substance > idea of finite substance > idea of mode of
substance
 Mode = properties of characteristics of substances

The Causal/Cosmological argument

Sceptical about RULE – could God be deceiver: need to remove doubt

Two kinds of reality:

 (P1) I have an idea with infinite objective reality

o The reality something has in virtue of being about something, or representing
something – of having an object
 Only representational thing, e.g. idea of something, have objective reality
 The objective reality of the idea of O = the formal reality of O itself
 (P2) The formal reality of the cause of an idea must be at least as great as the objective
reality of the idea
o The reality something has in itself, just in virtue of existing
o Everything in the world has formal reality
o The Causal Principle
 (C) Therefore: My idea must have a cause with infinite formal reality

P2: The Causal Principle: For an idea to contain objective reality, it must derive it from some cause
with at least as much formal reality as there is objective reality in the idea

 Basic idea: cannot get something out of northing

 Cannot get representation of something out of nothing
 Analogy: blueprint of complex machine produced by someone at least as ingenious/complex
as object represented in blueprint
o Q: correct?

P1: Meditator has idea with infinite objective reality; the idea of God

 Q: sure about idea with this content? Less objective reality i.e. very powerful man?

Therefore, by (P2), the idea must have a cause with just as much formal reality: God exists

 Cause of the idea of God must have infinite formal reality; could the infinite cause be
another being? Not God?
God non-deceiver

 Has no defects. Depiction is a defect

Problem: The ‘Cartesian Circle’

 Remove doubt about RULE by arguing non-deceiving God exists

 Replies on C&D perception to establish premises of argument (e.g. Causal principle,
connection between deception and defect)
 Circular argument?
 Wiki:
o Without his knowledge of God's existence, none of his knowledge could be certain.
The argument takes this form:
o 1) Descartes' proof of the reliability of clear and distinct perceptions takes as a
premise God's existence as a non-deceiver
o 2) Descartes' proofs of God's existence presuppose the reliability of clear and
distinct perceptions
 Arnauld
o Circular argument
o Relies upon the principle of clarity and distinctness to argue for the existence of
God, and then claims that God is the guarantor of his clear and distinct ideas