Title: Questions on Descartes Meditations

Topic: Descartes’ Meditations

In the light of Descartes' extraordinary method of doubting everything that is not

absolutely certain, how much of what we see and hear, think and believe, is really certain?
Can there be any certain knowledge-- does there need to be? 

Descartes' Methodic doubt is a method of withholding assent to the truth or falsity of all
one's beliefs before they are seen or rationally shown to be correct or incorrect. Descartes
attempted to explain philosophical truths by methodic doubt, which he claimed could transcend
even the most extreme skepticism. This method of thinking about philosophy, particularly among
rationalists, has become a hallmark of modern philosophy.

Descartes exemplified his methodic doubt in Meditation 1 of his classic Meditations on First
Philosophy. Descartes began by stating that during his life he had established many beliefs and
convictions, all of which he later discovered to be false. He'd also read a number of books and
learned that even the most brilliant minds couldn't agree on the most important issues. But
Descartes was looking for an unquestionable truth, an unquestionable reality. The problem was
determining how to achieve this aim. He couldn't possibly sort through all of the thoughts he'd
collected during his lifetime. As a result, he developed a method for categorizing vast amounts of
information. To begin, he determined that any belief or ostensible information that admitted even
the tiniest doubt could not be considered true. This didn't mean he had to believe it, but it did
mean he couldn't make a decision about it right away. Second, Descartes determined that
different types of opinions should be categorized according to the principle or foundation on
which they were established. As a consequence, if the underlying theory can be called into
question, all ideals based on that concept can be thrown out. Descartes set out to "demolish the
building" with all of his previous convictions in order to re-establish the cornerstone upon which
all true knowledge was to be built.

 First, Consider nothing as valid until it is shown to be so simple and distinctly.

 Second, Assemble as many simple parts as possible from the complex problem.
 Third, Start with the simplest and work your way up to the more complex.
 Fourth, Conduct the enumeration in such a way that nothing is overlooked.

  Descartes showed that everything and anything can be doubted, but not the fact that
Descartes is doubting, using his method of doubt. As a result, he comes to the popular
expression, "I think therefore I am." Descartes' methodic doubt began with his doubting
something he had experienced through his senses. He came to the realization that his senses were
no longer trustworthy if they had deceived him even once. His senses, on the other hand, had
previously driven him astray. For example, he often mistook what he saw from a distance (like a
tree that appeared to be a man). Furthermore, even observations he made at the moment when he
was specifically looking at something (such as the fire in front of him while writing) turned out
to be unreliable. How did he know he wasn't dreaming, after all? Descartes tried to answer this
question by claiming that our immediate memories are so vivid that they must be true; however,
he quickly refuted this assertion by recalling how he sometimes dreamed of sitting in front of a
fire while writing, and that some of these dreams came to him quite vividly. As a result, he had
no way of knowing whether he wasn't dreaming at the moment. In either case, Descartes deduced
from his skepticism that all sensory experience must be suspended.

The presumption that all might be a dream for the sake of argument kicked off the second
phase of Descartes' methodic doubt. However, even though this is the case, there is still much to
learn from the dream itself. In other words, while we may not be able to prove that all of the
images and concepts we have in our dreams are connected to some external reality, we can
investigate them in their most basic form to see if any of them are true in and of themselves.
After rejecting all simple components based on senses, such as color, sound, and so on,
Descartes arrived at the simple truths of mathematics. The truth that 2 + 2 = 4 is fully understood
in our minds, whether we are dreaming or awake, and is independent of any rational experience.
Descartes seems to have arrived at a clear and simple definition that is beyond dispute. We might
say out loud that 2 + 2 equals 5, but we can't really believe it in our hearts that it doesn't equal 4.

The last stage of Descartes' methodic doubt is what is known as "hyperbolic doubt." Keep
in mind that Descartes is searching for a truth that is without a doubt true. As a consequence, if a
possible explanation is offered, even if it is implausible or far-fetched, it casts doubt on the belief
and makes it suspect. How can we be sure that 2 + 2 does not equal 4 if our minds are forced to
admit it when we think of 2 + 2? The notion of the "evil genius" or "malicious deceiver" was
introduced by Descartes here. He theorized that there may be a nefarious god who enjoys
deceiving us. While we continue to believe that 2 + 2 equals 4, it is likely that this god is
deceiving us and the answer is actually 5. Descartes compares this to situations in which we are
confident of our views about a specific fact or state of affairs, only to discover later that we were
wrong. If we are being tricked by some evil god, the same can be said of our mathematical
realities.

 Is "I exist" the only absolutely certain truth, as Descartes says in the Second Meditation? 

The "I exist" the only absolutely certain truth, as Descartes says in the Second Meditation.

  The cogito or the “I”is one of those rare philosophical delights: a claim that, if properly
interpreted, cannot be refuted. The majority of objections to the cogito derive from erroneous
attempts to rewrite the logic as a syllogism: I live because (1) whatever thinks exists, (2) I think,
and (3) I exist. Clearly, the statement in this form is not conclusive, and there is no reason to
assume the first assertion is true. Understanding Descartes' brilliant reasoning requires first
recognizing that it is not a syllogism at all. The argument has only two steps: (1) I believe, (2)
therefore, I exist. The act of thought, doubting, believing, feeling, or some other mental activity
that one can perform proves one's existence. Since you can't do these things without being, being
conscious that you're doing one of these things is equivalent to being aware that you live.
 

What about the famous "dream" and "evil deceiver" problems raised by Descartes-- do
these show that everything except "I exist" can be doubted? 

Descartes' demon was created as part of a thought experiment with a very particular goal
in mind. Descartes wishes to prove that self-knowledge is the most certain sort of knowledge by
demonstrating that there are things we may know about ourselves that are never subject to
logical question. As a result, he must envision an entity with the greatest amount of power, who
will use that power to deceive us. Why is this thing attempting to deceive us? Now, if Descartes
were writing speculative fiction, he could come up with an intriguing backstory to explain The
Deceiver's motivations, giving us a well-rounded opponent rather than a stock villain. But he's
not trying to convey a story; he's simply doing a thought experiment. The Demon deceives us for
no other reason than that it enjoys doing things that we consider to be wicked.

  Descartes acknowledged that he lacks senses and a physical body, but does that mean he
doesn't exist? He has also said that the real world does not exist, implying that he does not exist
as well. He must, however, live in order to ask these questions. In order to be misled by an evil
demon in all of these insidious ways, he must survive. There must be an "I" who is capable of
doubt, deceit, and other such things. So, after careful consideration, I must conclude that this
proposition, I am, I exist, is inherently true whether put forward by me or anyone else, he says.
Descartes' next question is what this "I" that exists is. He initially believed he had both a mind
and a body, in which he was nourished, moved, sensed, and felt. Many of these attributes have
been challenged, except for one: he cannot doubt his own thoughts. He can exist without any of
the above attributes, but he cannot exist without thought. Furthermore, he only exists while he is
dreaming. As a consequence, thought and being are inextricably connected. The Meditator
concludes that he is nothing more than a thing that thinks in the strictest sense.

Do Descartes' arguments for the existence of God succeed, and why or why not? 

Descartes does not succeed in his arguments for the existence of God.

 Descartes' ontological argument runs like this: (1) our conception of God is of a perfect being,
(2) it is more perfect to exist than not to exist, and (3) hence, God must exist.
  This proof essentially conjures up the existence of his god. You wouldn't be able to
comprehend what would happen if his god didn't exist. What is the basis for this “limitation” of
my imagination, given that I can imagine all sorts of things that don't exist (e.g., green hot dogs,
leprechauns, unicorns, etc.)?

“Since the notion of God has the amount of (objective) reality proper to an infinite substance, it
is acceptable to inquire where a concept with this level of reality comes from,” he says in his
second argument. Descartes decides that it must derive from a substance with at least the same
amount of (formal) reality after analyzing numerous choices. As a result, an infinite substance
must exist, i.e. God.” Again, this is connecting the idea of god being an endless entity to its
reality, but there is no proof for the existence of an endless entity, therefore this has the same
issue as the first.

Descartes also made other arguments, such as:

 If God didn't exist, I couldn't exist as the kind of thing that has this idea of God, because I
didn't create myself, I haven't always existed, and, while there may have been a series of
causes that led to my existence, the ultimate cause must be such that it could give me the
idea of God, and this, for the reasons already stated, will be God.
 This conception of God did not come to me through my senses, nor did I invent it,
because I am unable to take anything away from it or add anything to it. The only other
possibility is that it is something I was born with.

Again, these are "proofs" based on our conceptions of God, and since Descartes had a
conception of god but could not have had a conception of himself before his birth, God must
exist. Of course, this isn't the only conclusion that may be drawn because none of these proofs
identify his god. We wouldn't know if a great extraterrestrial race arrived on Earth and produced
the human species before abandoning us, thus "god" could be aliens... or any other mythical
creature that one believes in (with any sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable
from magic). All of these lead to the same conclusion: "I can picture God, so it must exist,"
which is about as weak an argument as one could offer. Remember, this is the guy who came up
with the phrase "I think, therefore I am" as proof of his own existence. However, proving to
someone else that they think is difficult at best.