Rebuttal to the Cartesian Circle??: Philosophy Forums

Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat

Members Calendar New Posts Chat Help

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Rebuttal to the Cartesian Circle?? » Rebuttal to the Cartesian Circle??

Rebuttal to the Cartesian Circle??

print

Print

Page: 1 2

Rebuttal to the Cartesian Circle??

sennecrib
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 03, 2004
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 10/03/04 - 04:52 PM:	#1
Hey, it seems to me that the discovery of the "Cartesian Circle" was a pretty big blow to Descartes and his first proof for the existence of God. What do you guys think Descartes would say to attempt to save himself?? I'm havin a tough time tryin to think of a good rebuttal.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 10/03/04 - 05:13 PM:	#2
sennecrib wrote: Hey, it seems to me that the discovery of the "Cartesian Circle" was a pretty big blow to Descartes and his first proof for the existence of God. What do you guys think Descartes would say to attempt to save himself?? I'm havin a tough time tryin to think of a good rebuttal. You don't have to speculate on how Descartes would reply to the circularity objection. Descartes did reply, and we have his reply. Antoine Arnauld, in the Fourth Objections to The Meditations wrote: 'I have one further worry, namely how the author avoids reasoning in a circle when he says that we are sure that what we clearly and distinctly perceive is true only because God exists. But we can be sure that God exists only because we clearly and distinctly perceive this. Hence, before we can be sure that God exists, we ought to be able to be sure that whatever we perceive clearly and evidently is true.'[4] Arnauld points out that if we must prove that God exists before we can validate our clear and distinct perceptions, how is it that we can use such perceptions to prove that God exists? Before Descartes can prove that his perceptions are clear and distinct, he needs the guarantee that certain knowledge of God's existence would provide. Arnauld seems quite aware that circularity has been committed. He is referring to the passage that isolates the requirement of God's existence to validate such perceptions, where Descartes states: '...I must examine whether there is a God, and, if there is, whether he can be a deceiver. For if I do not know this, it seems that I can never be quite certain about anything else.'[5] The problem with this is how Descartes then goes on to establish the existence of God. 'This is, indeed, what he next proceeds to do, but by way of offering proofs.'[6] The problem with using the proofs that he does is that only certain knowledge of God's existence can guarantee the truth or certainty of anything, and therefore, '...we have no grounds for accepting the premises or validity of these proofs.'[7] For example, Descartes states that God is good and would not deceive us, and that God provides us with a faculty of correcting errors. Descartes is proposing that we know God first, in order to validate the proofs that would lead to knowing God through inference. God's existence is the proof of God's existence. The circularity here is quite evident. In his reply to Arnauld, Descartes refers to part of his second objections. Here Descartes appears to make two separate attempts to avoid circularity. Firstly, he claims that when we are convinced of a perception being true, '...if this conviction is so firm that it is impossible for us ever to have any reason for doubting what we are convinced of, then there are no further questions for us to ask: we have everything that we could reasonably want.'[10] Such convictions are held to be as true as the most perfect certainty. Descartes adds that such convictions cannot come from the senses but only the intellect. He seems to say that some perceptions are held to be certain and true based on the strength of 'belief'. One example given is the Cogito argument, 'I am a thinking thing and therefore exist.' Beliefs are such that the mere thought of them entails certainty. 'Hence we cannot doubt them without at the same time believing they are true; that is, we can never doubt them.'[11] Here, Descartes attempts to break the circle by allowing some perceptions to be held certain without God's guarantee, because they could not possibly be doubted. The problem with this is that it sacrifices the claim that nothing is certain until knowledge of God's existence is proved. Clearly, some things are certain independent on whether or not God exists. Secondly, he states that there are other very clear perceptions of the intellect, but they are perceived only by attending to the arguments '...on which our knowledge of them depends.'[12] Their certainty is assured only when we are in such attendance. When we are not attending to them, they can be doubted. It may be that we have a memory of the conclusion that was reached by such arguments, which are for the time being forgotten. As to the conviction of certainty we should attribute to such conclusions, Descartes refers us to the end of the fifth Meditation. Here, he states that, '...as long as I remember that I clearly and distinctly perceived it, there are no counter-arguments which can be adduced to make me doubt it, but on the contrary I have true and certain knowledge of it.'[13] Descartes is making a distinction between what we perceive clearly and what we remember having perceived clearly. In order for something to be knowledge, it must at least have duration in the mind. This means that even when not concentrated on, it is still knowledge with the potential to be known. Some beliefs, on the other hand, can be certain without God's guarantee for their truth, but only for as long as they are concentrated on. Such beliefs are clear and distinct, and therefore true, when thought of and not reliant upon a non-deceiving God that would assure us of their truth. Their truth is ascertained by their being clear and distinct when concentrated on. So, there is no mystery about how Descartes replies. The only question is whether his reply is an adequate one.

RandomPrecision
Divisible by 3

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Elsewhere
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1383

Posted 10/21/04 - 08:02 PM:	#3
I haven't got around to finishing my copy of the Meditations, but I don't recall how Descartes comes to the conclusion that God isn't a deceiver. But, the possibility seems to render the responses you posted inadequate. If God is always truthful, he would assure Descartes of his perceptions' truthfulness, but if God is deceptive he would do the same. We can't assume that there is a God who will prevent us from assuming wrongly, can we? And even if we do buy the second response, how could some theists have deep arguments about things that they clearly perceive in their minds, and concentrate upon? I haven't responded to the first as much because it stinks of either circularity or contradiction. The whole doubting experiment assumes everything is uncertain. Descartes thought he could prove things once he had proven God to exist. If he assumes something before that, it is an unfounded assumption, as he can only prove it if he first uses it to prove God. The introduction of this response leaves him in exactly the same position as before.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 10/22/04 - 04:46 AM:	#4
RandomPrecision wrote: I haven't got around to finishing my copy of the Meditations, but I don't recall how Descartes comes to the conclusion that God isn't a deceiver. But, the possibility seems to render the responses you posted inadequate. If God is always truthful, he would assure Descartes of his perceptions' truthfulness, but if God is deceptive he would do the same. We can't assume that there is a God who will prevent us from assuming wrongly, can we? And even if we do buy the second response, how could some theists have deep arguments about things that they clearly perceive in their minds, and concentrate upon? I haven't responded to the first as much because it stinks of either circularity or contradiction. The whole doubting experiment assumes everything is uncertain. Descartes thought he could prove things once he had proven God to exist. If he assumes something before that, it is an unfounded assumption, as he can only prove it if he first uses it to prove God. The introduction of this response leaves him in exactly the same position as before. It had occurred to me that you might like to hear Descartes' own defence against the charge of circularity.

aalexand
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 24, 2004
Location: Kalamazoo
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 10/25/04 - 04:54 PM:	#5
To understand Descartes correctly on must understand the difference between metaphysical dependence and epistemological dependence. God may be the reason clear and distinct perception can be relied on in cases where one takes his mind's eye off of the demonstration but we are not epistemologically dependent on God's existence in some cases. We don't need the knowledge of God's existence in order to successfully use clear and distinct perception due to the direct awareness that the natural light provides. Descartes demands a clear understanding and strict adherence to his arguments and terminology. His arguments may come off as being light but this is just an effect of his very clear writing style.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 10/25/04 - 06:35 PM:	#6
aalexand wrote: To understand Descartes correctly on must understand the difference between metaphysical dependence and epistemological dependence. God may be the reason clear and distinct perception can be relied on in cases where one takes his mind's eye off of the demonstration but we are not epistemologically dependent on God's existence in some cases. We don't need the knowledge of God's existence in order to successfully use clear and distinct perception due to the direct awareness that the natural light provides. Descartes demands a clear understanding and strict adherence to his arguments and terminology. His arguments may come off as being light but this is just an effect of his very clear writing style. Descartes himself declares that an atheist cannot know for certain that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, since to know such an eternal truth it is necessary to believe in the divine guarantee that all clear and distinct ideas are true. So, although it is true that eternal truths are true, no atheist can know they are true.

aalexand
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 24, 2004
Location: Kalamazoo
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 10/25/04 - 07:33 PM:	#7
The reason an atheist cannot be certain that his geometric conclusions are true is because he cannot guarantee that the truth will not 'shift underneath him' when he not looking. When he holds a demonstrative proof in his mind's eye he will see the truth via the natural light. But when he looks away and then tries to apply the conclusion he must go through the demonstration again in order to see that it is still true. The theist has a guarantee of a true and immutable nature so he can trust that the demonstration he used 10 minutes ago will still hold true at this moment in time. So...regarding the circle...the knowledge of the existence of God is not necessary for our ability to apply the natural light (which is what Descartes uses for his 3rd med God proof). The natural light is a phenomenon that the atheist, theist, and agnostic can all use because they all have access to it. Later we find that the existence of God is metaphysically necessary but not epistemically necessary for our ability to percieve all truths. I hope that was helpful.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 10/25/04 - 10:30 PM:	#8
aalexand wrote: The reason an atheist cannot be certain that his geometric conclusions are true is because he cannot guarantee that the truth will not 'shift underneath him' when he not looking. When he holds a demonstrative proof in his mind's eye he will see the truth via the natural light. But when he looks away and then tries to apply the conclusion he must go through the demonstration again in order to see that it is still true. The theist has a guarantee of a true and immutable nature so he can trust that the demonstration he used 10 minutes ago will still hold true at this moment in time. So...regarding the circle...the knowledge of the existence of God is not necessary for our ability to apply the natural light (which is what Descartes uses for his 3rd med God proof). The natural light is a phenomenon that the atheist, theist, and agnostic can all use because they all have access to it. Later we find that the existence of God is metaphysically necessary but not epistemically necessary for our ability to percieve all truths. I hope that was helpful. That would imply that an eternal truth (as Descartes would surely say it was) might be true at the instant we apprehend it, but might not be true at the next instant when we do not apprehend it. That sound to me like a contradiction. Doesn't it to you?

aalexand
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 24, 2004
Location: Kalamazoo
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 10/26/04 - 04:48 AM:	#9
Gassendi1 wrote: That would imply that an eternal truth (as Descartes would surely say it was) might be true at the instant we apprehend it, but might not be true at the next instant when we do not apprehend it. That sound to me like a contradiction. Doesn't it to you? It may sound like a contradiction but it is not. In this case Descartes is claiming that we are epistemically dependent on the knowledge of God to understand the nature eternal truths. Without this the atheist cannot be certain that these truths are in fact eternal. It seems like Descartes is prepared to say that God is metaphysically responsible for the eternal guarantee of some truths. This actually fits into his views on omnipotence. This is a whole separate issue though. The fact that an atheist could hardly effectively do geometry is an effect of the arguments he puts forth, not a premise.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 10/26/04 - 05:05 AM:	#10
aalexand wrote: It may sound like a contradiction but it is not. In this case Descartes is claiming that we are epistemically dependent on the knowledge of God to understand the nature eternal truths. Without this the atheist cannot be certain that these truths are in fact eternal. It seems like Descartes is prepared to say that God is metaphysically responsible for the eternal guarantee of some truths. This actually fits into his views on omnipotence. This is a whole separate issue though. The fact that an atheist could hardly effectively do geometry is an effect of the arguments he puts forth, not a premise. So, what you are saying is that although God does guarantee the eternal truth of eternal truths, the atheist cannot, himself, use such a guarantee, and, therefore, he cannot know that the eternal truths are true whenever he believes they are true. I suppose so, although what is to stop the atheist from arguing that although he, himself, does not believe in God, nevertheless, if there is a God, the eternal truths are guaranteed, and he, the Atheist, will be satisfied with such a conditional guarantee? Of course, such an atheist would have to be a "weak atheist" who does not believe in God, and not a "strong atheist" who disbelieves in God. The weak atheist could be an effective geometer. And, then, again, an atheist might very well not believe that eternal truths are self-guaranteeing, and require no God to keep them metaphysically in shape. But that, of course, is a separate issue, as you might say.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

30 total queries
This page was created in 3.1 seconds
Memory used: 7193660 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 246 days, 19:05, load average: 2.52, 2.11, 2.09