To Be or Not To Be Certain: The Fall of René Descartes
٭٭٭
One of Buddhism’s most cited commandments goes straight into the heart of human weakness, “the greatest enemy of one’s life is oneself.” What this Buddhist teaching says is we human beings have a tendency of abusing the confidence and integrity in our own abilities, thus leading us to the problem of making purely intuitive decisions. Possibly, unimaginable consequences can happen as a result, which the recent financial crisis has granted us several examples. In addition, Plato also touches upon this critical point in his work Plato’s Republic, “they [a group of prisoners chained together in a cave] see only the shadows the light from the fire throws on the wall of the cave in front of them – their own shadows or those of the objects passing behind the wall” (257, emphasis added). Plato implies that with only a limited source of light and a limited angle of view, a prisoner may only see certain images of the shadows inside the cave, and believe these are true images, while in fact, they are simply deceived by their own mind. This idea is consistent with the concept of uncertainty in our judgment mentioned earlier. However, René Descartes, one of the most influential philosophers in Europe in the 17th century, offers us a unique solution—a method that will solve our quest for certainty in philosophy. As a profound mathematician and scientist, Descartes utilizes the power of logic in different sciences to arrive at a step-by-step methodology, which he details in Discourse on the Method, and later applies this methodology to prove the existence of God. Sadly, what Descartes offers in the end is simply a flawed process, built upon his very own foundation of logical superiority. Ironically, his most prominent argument and proof of the existence of God, is also one of his weakest links, and thus will be used to show that Descartes suffers from the same weakness human beings possess: overconfidence in our abilities. Consequently, by demonstrating that his proof of God’s existence is flawed, I also succeed in concluding Descartes has failed in achieving absolute certainty in philosophy.
Therefore, I begin this paper by introducing Descartes’s methodology of reasoning in philosophy and a critical concept of pre-supposition, the foundation of his argument. Next, I examine Descartes’s process of proving God’s existence and finally, I look at the origin of the internal contradiction in Descartes’s logic, which stems from his very concepts of formal reality and objective reality, causation, infinite and finite substances. In order to finish the last task, I also borrow Friedrich Nietzsche’s school of thought to cast a doubt over Descartes’s conclusion.
First, let us examine Descartes’s description of his methodology, as described in Discourse on the Method:
The first was never to accept anything as true if I did not have evident knowledge of this truth ... The second, to divide each of the difficulties I examined into as many parts as possible and as may be required in order to resolve them better ... The third, to direct my thoughts in an orderly manner, by beginning with the simplest and most easily known objects in order to ascend little by little, step by step, ... the last, throughout to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so comprehensive, that I could be sure of leaving nothing out.” (29, emphasis added)
Since it is almost impossible for one to discover any flaws in this logical flow, he or she should look into some critical presumptions embedded in Descartes’s proof. According to Descartes, only when satisfying these conditions, will one succeed in moving on, “ ... provided we refrain from accepting anything as true which is not, and always keep to the order required for deducing one thing from another, there can be nothing too remote to be reached in the end or too well hidden to be discovered” (Dis. 29, emphasis added). Here Descartes proposes that, just as when building a house, one needs a solid foundation. Thus, only when this foundation is insecure, will the structure of the house be affected. Let us then look at how firm Descartes’s “house” is.
The first critical Cartesian concept in the proof of God’s existence is the relationship between cause and effect. In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes states, “now it is manifest by the natural light that there must be at least as much
The second important proposition is the origin of an idea, for one must question where the idea comes from, which is effectively a causal relationship. According to Descartes, there appear to be three origins of ideas, “among my ideas, some appear to be innate, some to be adventitious, and others to have been invented by me” (Med. 89). Ultimately, Descartes proves that the idea of God is innate, and this will be a critical point to exploit later. However, he arrives at this conclusion only after abandoning the idea of God as coming from neither adventitious, or outside sources, nor self-invented origin. In Principles of Philosophy, Descartes states:
Furthermore, we cannot have within us the idea or image of anything without there being somewhere, either within us or outside us, an original which contains in reality all the perfections belonging to the idea. And since the supreme perfections of which we have an idea are in no way to be found in us, we rightly conclude that they reside in something distinct from ourselves, namely God ... (167, emphasis added)
Here Descartes implies that an idea of a being as infinite as God cannot possibly come from any finite sources, such as human beings, nor come from any collection of outside sources, since these are by nature finite as well.
Finally, the last proposition is the relationship between objective reality and formal reality. Descartes mentions this relationship in the Third Meditation, “undoubtedly, the ideas which represent substances to me amount to something more and, so to speak, contain within themselves more objective reality than the ideas which merely represent modes or accidents” (Med. 90). [1] Descartes believes that every object of an idea originally possesses its unique formal reality, which is that any idea has the same form, but just different content. Stemming from this, an objective reality of an idea merely reflects the formal reality to which the idea refers to. Nonetheless, how does Descartes connect this concept to the existence of God? In Objections and Replies, he claims, “but we have an idea of God (Def. II and VIII), and the objective reality of this idea is not contained in us either formally or eminently (Axiom VI); moreover it cannot be contained in any other being except God himself (Def. VIII). Therefore this idea of God, which is in us, must have God as it cause ... ” (Obj. 157). In this quotation, Descartes uses the concept of objective reality to challenge the notion that it is not possible for a finite substance, such as human being, to be the cause of an idea containing infinite objective reality, thus proving God cannot possibly come from one’s self-invention. He clearly restates this point at the beginning of Meditations on First Philosophy:
One such problem, among others, is how the idea of a supremely perfect being, which is in us, possesses so much objective reality that it can come only from a cause which is supremely perfect. In the Replies this is illustrated by the comparison of a very perfect machine, the idea which is in the mind of some engineer. Just as the objective intricacy belonging to the idea must have some cause, namely the scientific knowledge of the engineer, or of someone else who passed the idea onto him, so the idea of God which is in us must have God himself as its cause. (75)
With all these points tied together, Descartes concludes, with absolute certainty, that, if we accept his methodology and these propositions, God’s existence can be proven. This conclusion is based on first, the innate idea of God, second, the causal principle which states that the cause necessarily contains infinite formal reality, and finally, no cause can contain this infinite characteristic other than God himself. Descartes later admits in Principles of Philosophy, “finally, we will see that besides the notions of God and of our mind, we have within us knowledge of many propositions which are eternally true, such as ‘Nothing comes from nothing’ ... When we contrast all this knowledge with the confused thoughts we had before, we will acquire the habit of forming clear and distinct concepts of all the things that can be known” (188, emphasis added). Thus, if I successfully attempt at casting even a tiniest doubt over Descartes’s reasoning, my objective will be met and Descartes’s foundation of the argument for God’s existence will no longer be formidable.
In order to disprove Descartes’s points, I first have to discredit his propositions and point out if there is any imperfection in his reasoning. First, the ideas raised by Friedrich Nietzsche, who believes that one should only focus on his or her current life instead of believing in imaginative world, helps shed some lights on Descartes’s propositions. In his work Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche goes straight to demolish any idea of causation:
The causal instinct is thus conditional upon, and excited by, the feeling of fear. The “why?” shall, if at all possible, not give the cause for its own sake so much as for a particular kind of cause- a cause that is comforting, liberating, and relieving ... Thus one searches not only for some kind of explanation to serve as a cause, but for a particularly selected and preferred kind of explanation ... one kind of positing of causes predominates more and more, is concentrated into a system, and finally emerges as dominant, that is, as simply precluding other causes and explanations. (497 - 98, emphasis added)
Known for his combination of psychological thinking and philosophy, Nietzsche clearly points out to us the limits and flaws of the idea of causation, which is a critical presumption that Descartes makes in the quest to prove God’s existence. Here in this passage, he states that our need for an explanation is merely to serve our principal appetite and interest. Thus, he concludes that, “the banker immediately thinks of ‘business,’ the Christian of ‘sin,’ and the girl of her love” (498).
Regarding Descartes’s proposition on the origin of an idea, Nietzsche states:
All the highest values are of the first rank; all the highest concepts, that which has being, the unconditional, the good, the true, the perfect- all these cannot have become and must therefore be cause sui [self-caused]. All these, moreover, cannot be unlike each other or in contradiction to each other. Thus they arrive at their stupendous concept, “God.” That which is last, thinnest, and emptiest is put first, as the cause, as ens realissi-mum. (482)
Descartes proposes in his Meditations that human being is between God and nothingness, and that God is the purest, or in his own words, “eternal, infinite,
However, Nietzsche himself admits that any idea in this world, no matter how real or true it appears, merely comes from a subjective point of view. Thus, supporters of the Cartesian principles may not, after all, find Nietzsche’s psychological explanation of Descartes’s flaws appealing nor convincing. Let us then take on the arduous task of examining if Descartes indeed creates any internal contradiction in his logic. In essence, on the surface, Descartes’s proof of God’s existence is seamless, yet Descartes suffers from the same fallacy that any of us can easily commit to as a result of our subjective limitation. Earlier, I discuss the way Descartes proves that there exists a causal relationship, which he undoubtedly claims since something cannot arise out of nothing, a cause must have at least the same qualities, or by Descartes’s measurement, reality, as the effect, “ ... there must be at least as much
Let us however take a step back in order to clearly see the big picture. If there is only one infinite being, which is God, and he is the creator, or the ultimate cause, then all effects of this cause must be finite. On the other hand, the objective reality of the idea of God is infinite and there should only be one infinite being. Also, Descartes himself testifies that the objective reality of an idea represents the effect from some prior causes, which cannot be adventitious nor self-invented, as shown before, but innate. However, the objective reality of this idea of God cannot be infinite because in essence, all effects must be finite, as proven earlier. Consequently, Descartes must either abandon his pre-suppositions that the effect of a cause is finite, or that there exists only one infinite being. Now, it is as clear as the natural light that Descartes’s proof of God’s existence is flawed and doubtful. As mentioned earlier, even if I may cast even a tiniest doubt over his reasoning, I have accomplished what I set out to do: bringing down the formidable stronghold Descartes built. Undoubtedly, at the end of the day, what Descartes sets out to do from the beginning is simply building a dream within a dream, just as when Nietzsche raises the question, “is man merely a mistake of God’s? Or God merely a mistake of man’s?” (467).
Unfortunately, Descartes himself admits failing to prove God’s existence means he also fails to achieve absolute certainty in philosophy, “ ... the certainty and truth of all knowledge depends uniquely on my awareness of the true God, to such an extent that I was incapable of perfect knowledge about anything else until I became aware of him” (Med. 110). He has set out to demonstrate God’s existence by applying his rigid methodology, as well as some presumptions that were completely discredited by Friedrich Nietzsche and his psychological argument. Moreover, I have established the existence of a major flaw in Descartes’s argument, developed simply from his own logical argument. This really is a warning call for many, as apparently human nature often lets immodesty dictate our reasoning and decision-making process. In this case, I am looking at a major flaw made by one of the brightest minds in the history of philosophy and science. Indeed, any rational being should question one of mankind’s most ancient objectives, as Descartes describes, “ ... and thus make ourselves, as it were, the lords and masters of nature” (Dis. 47). How can human, a being that is so flawed just like many others, if not more, take control of this world? With crises after crises, with so much blood spilled, so many lives lost, this seems to be a difficult concept for many to swallow. For now, Nietzsche offers an answer, perhaps with a smile on his face, “man is more ape than any ape” (124). [2]
“I pledge my honor that I have neither received nor provided unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.”
Works Cited
Descartes, René. Discourse on the Method. Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings. Trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge UP, 2009. 20-56. Print.
———. Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings. Trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge UP, 2009. 73–122. Print.
———. Objections and Replies. Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings. Trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge UP, 2009. 123-159. Print.
———. Principles of Philosophy. Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings. Trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge UP, 2009. 160-212. Print.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Twilight of the Idols. The Portable Nietzsche. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Penguin Books, 1982. Print.
Plato. Plato's Republic. Trans. Benjamin Jowett; rev. Albert A. Anderson. Millis, MA: Agora , 2001. Print.
Works Consulted
Waite, Ronald. Descartes’ Proof of God’s Existence (Mediation Three). 2011. Class Note.
[1] Descartes proposes the differences in substance, modes and accidents based on the degree of reality each of them possesses. In particular, substance is a characteristic of a thing that can exist independently; mode is the
different forms or aspects of a substance; finally, accident is non-essential aspect of a thing and can be altered. The author would like to express appreciation towards Professor Ronald Waite for clarification of this Cartesian concept.
[2] The author would like to express his appreciation towards Professor Ronald Waite’s and the Writing Center’s assistance during the completion of this work.
