Wednesday, October 5, 2016
A God Chasing Its Tail?
Antoine Arnauld (among others) famously accuses Descartes of arguing in a circle: the principle of clear and distinct ideas requires a non-deceiving God to validate it, but the proof of a non-deceiving God requires the principle of clear and distinct ideas. Is Arnauld correct? If not, why not? If not, at what cost?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Descartes argues that if someone clearly perceives something then it must be true if a “non-deceiving god” affirms it. He then goes on to say that God, who is “non-deceiving”, needs to be proven by clear perceptions. Critics argue that this argument is the classic never ending game of which came first, the chicken or the egg? There is never a clear end or beginning. Known as the Cartesian Circle, many counterclaims argue that this argument is not valid because there is no definite end. Arnauld is one of the readers not sold: “You are not yet certain of the existence of God, and you say that you are not certain of anything, and cannot know anything clearly and distinctly until you have achieved clear and certain knowledge of the existence of God” (125). Arnauld strengthens his argument by giving an example. He says that an atheist knows that the three angles of a triangle equal one hundred and eighty degrees, he does not need a God to affirm this (141). Therefore, can a non-deceiving God exist if an atheist can come up with the same conclusions? Descartes replies clearing up what he originally meant, “I do not dispute. But I maintain that this awareness of his is not true knowledge, since no act of awareness that can be rendered doubtful seems fits to be called knowledge” (141). His argument says that the atheist’s conclusion is certainly not knowledge, for all knowledge comes from the fact that a non-deceiving God does exist. He goes on to say that an atheist’s ideas can never be made certain because without the presence of God, there will always be doubt. In this case, despite Descartes’ attempts of clarity, Arnauld is correct. If there is or is not a non-deceiving God, mistakes still happen every day. Mistakes are caused if there is doubt in a situation. This means that even if there is a non-deceiving God, doubt is always present. If there is doubt can one ever clearly perceive something to be true? If you cannot perceive something to be true does that mean that an “evil genius” could be tricking you? If there is an “evil genius” does that mean that there is not a “non-deceiving” God? The issue with Descartes is that any fault found in his claim, such as above, unravels his whole argument because it is circular.
ReplyDeleteAt the infancy of the scientific revolution, Descartes is distraught worrying if ideas are well-founded, if arguments are grounded in truth, and if knowledge is even attainable. He thus sets out on a mission to disprove skepticism (the idea that we know nothing) and to also achieve a foundational project (successfully finding a class of beliefs that themselves are not in need of justification, so they in turn can help justify other beliefs).
ReplyDeleteIn his endeavors, Descartes finds two things: he exists and he is a thing that thinks. From these two “instances of knowledge”, he extrapolates “a general rule of knowledge” which confirms that everything that he clearly and distinctly perceives to be true is true. HOWEVER, he considers the possibility of an “evil genius,” - one who can cause things that he clearly and distinctly perceives to be true as FALSE – so he then consequentially proves the existence of God in order to rule out the possibility of such a deceiving being. If a benevolent God exists, his clear and distinct perceptions MUST be true. This knowledge can then be used as a foundational belief.
While Descartes’ arguments are fascinating and his mission is admirable, many people, including notable philosopher Antoine Arnauld, have accused Descartes of using circular reasoning, and their accusations are correct. In “Objections and Replies” one points out that, “You are not yet certain of the existence of God, and you say that you are not certain of anything, and cannot know anything clearly and distinctly until you have achieved clear and certain knowledge of the existence of God” (125). Despite Descartes’ uncertainty of God and thus his uncertainty in his abilities to perceive truth, he still uses his perceptions to prove God’s existence. To put it in simple terms, Descartes claims that everything he clearly and distinctly perceives is true, and God’s existence guarantees this rule. However, God’s existence is proven through the premises of everything he clearly and distinctly perceives is true.
The circular reasoning flaw in Descartes’ argumentation is so great that is has earned a name for itself as the Cartesian Circle. Descartes has tried to make up for his catastrophic mistake by making the argument that God is actually NOT necessary to clearly and distinctly perceive something as true, but only to preserve the MEMORY of the truth. Thus, one does not need God to guarantee the truth of a mental apprehension (e.g., the favorite example of the Pythagoras Thereon in class) but only needs God to PRESERVE its memory. But in the absence of a benevolent God, the ability to rule out the idea of the “evil genius” is impossible, and thus Descartes cannot prove that everything he clearly and distinctly perceives is true! In the end, Descartes is unable to find his way out of the circle BECAUSE HIS ARGUMENTS ONLY MAKE SENSE WHEN THEY ARE IN A CIRLCE: God exists because he sees clearly and distinctly, and he sees clearly and distinctly because God exists. It seems that despite his best efforts to validate his arguments, Arnauld and the rest are without a doubt correct – Descartes’ reasoning is circular and the Cartesian Circle is unbreakable.
-Seysha
Descartes makes the statement that in order for our perception to be real, God must be non-deceiving. This is rooted in the idea that God would want us to clearly perceive our lives. However, Descartes uses the belief that we have clear perception as evidence for a non-deceiving God. Decarte supports the idea of a non-deceiving God by referencing our clear perception of reality. However, Decarte has no evidence to support the fact that our reality is indeed real, other than the statement that we have a non-deceiving God. He uses each statement to affirm the other, but neither is confirmed without the validation of the other. This is a text book example of circular reasoning. Descartes has nothing to support his argument, so he ties each statement together in an attempt to validate them.
ReplyDeleteTheologian Antoine Arnauld encapsulates this argument in his fourth set of objections. “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 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.” (Fourth Objections to Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy) Descartes counters this argument by saying that a non-deceiving God is NOT necessary for our perception to be real. By making this statement, Descartes contradicts the conclusion of his first meditation. Descartes concluded in his first meditation that nothing we perceive is certain to be real. This has yet to be disproven. It is impossible to discern true reality, because it is impossible to disprove the possibility of a deceiving God. Arnauld is correct in saying that Descartes conclusion is unproven.
Descartes famous “Cartesian Circle” argument states that all knowledge comes from an un-deceiving omnipotent God, and we know that he exists because we can clearly and distinctly perceive him to be true. This clear and distinct perception comes from the knowledge that there is a non-deceiving omnipotent god, which we know because we clearly and distinctly perceive him to exist, which perceptions are confirmed by our knowledge that there is a non-deceiving… ok you get the picture. So Descartes argument is circular. What of it? Arnauld is very obviously in the right on this one. But there is still hope. The problem with a circular argument is that it doesn’t actually argue anything. Regardless of the ideas inside the argument, it is based upon itself with no structure or foundation, and thus cannot be taken as true knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThis really poses a problem for a philosopher of epistemology such as Descartes. His whole argument that he spent pages and pages building to is going to have to wait until this problem can be solved. And how can it be solved? He has to break his circle. And he can do this by solving the problem, for which he needs to break the circle of reasoning to solve the problem and break the circle so that he can solve the problem… OK now I'm just messing with you. But there is a real problem with his argument. How does he get out of his circular reasoning? In the “Objections and Replies” that were written as a response to the meditations and then replied to by Descartes himself in his later life, it offers some insight. The first objection offered to Descartes is that god is not required to clearly and distinctly perceive things, for example, an atheist will still be very aware of math concepts such as the Pythagorean Theorem or other laws of triangles. In order to include this, Descartes replies that without God to remind you of things previously learned, there is the possibility of doubt in an imperfect human memory. Thus he states that to truly know something, you must have God on your side filling in the blank spaces in your knowledge. He argues that atheists can try to disprove his point, but their points will be based in falsehood and thus always fall through. Unfortunately, this doesn’t help us get out of the circle.
The next objection is posed as a question, “How can you establish that you are not deceived…in matters which you think you know clearly and distinctly? Have we not often seen people turn out to have been deceived in matters where they thought their knowledge was as clear as sunlight?” (O+R, 126) Descartes again fails to break out of his circle by saying that God, as a supreme being, must be supremely good and true given that he is perfect, as a perfect being could not be evil because evil is the opposite of perfection. That being said he must not be capable of deceiving those under his care.
Straying a bit from Descartes, I believe this to be true to an extent. God is supremely perfect, and he would not deceive us. But that does not mean we cannot be deceived. According to physics, there must be opposition in all things in order for the world to be in perfect balance, meaning that if there is a supremely good being, there is also a force of evil attempting to destroy his work. This is how we are deceived. This evil force can change the imperfections of humans and exploit them against us in a way that can render our perceptions false. That being said, Descartes has really dug himself into a hole with this circle that he can't seem to get out of. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is a way for him to effectively prove his point without changing it.
In Descartes’ third Meditation, he attempts to prove to himself that the basic truths such as arithmetic which he believes to be true are in fact true and not a deception of God. To do this, he must first look into God’s existence and whether or not God is perfect. The main point which he comes to is that everything he clearly and distinctly perceive is true, and since he clearly and distinctly perceives that God exists and God guarantees this rule to be true, everything he clearly and distinctly perceive is true. Since both premises in this argument require the other to be true for the entire statement to be true, this is in fact circular reasoning as Antoine Arnauld accused. However, I don’t want to argue that this is circular reasoning, but I want to argue that the fact of God being clearly and distinctly perceived is false. Looking back at Descartes’ argument on why God is clearly and distinctly perceived, his only reasoning behind this statement is that he believes that there could be no possible way for a finite being, like himself, to possibly contrive something infinite like God. He believes that only infinite beings have the capacity to think of other infinite things, so God must have planted the idea in us before we were born. However, I believe that finite beings are capable of engineering something in the infinite. Just by looking at human life, we can formulate a way to think of an infinite being through negation. Knowing that we all die, it is certainly possible that a person who doesn’t know about God could think about something that doesn’t die. This contradicts Descartes belief, therefore showing that even though his reasoning is in fact circular, it isn’t exactly soundly correct. Since one of the premises in circular reasoning might not be true, the conclusion that everything that he clearly and distinctly perceived is true might also not be true.
ReplyDeleteIn the creation of his epistemological system, Descartes seems to run into a problem in which his definition of knowledge, something that is so clearly and distinctly perceived that it cannot be true, runs up against a wall. In particular, Descartes describes a situation in which an omnipotent God, one who has the capability to alter even our most clear and distinct perceptions, becomes malevolent instead of benevolent. What seems to be rather interesting, and what becomes the crux of the issue for Arnauld and other critics, is Descartes resolution to this self-posed problem. Descartes’ position that clear and distinct ideas justify the existence of a non-deceiving God and the existence of a non-deceiving God guarantees the existence of clear and distinct ideas. Descartes’ reply to such an objection by Arnauld, however, seems to be even more suspect when he seems to contradict his original problem - the efficacy of a deceiving omnipotent god. Ultimately it seems that, despite Descartes attempts to break free of the circle, he is unsuccessful in his task, which leaves us with the aftermath of such collapse in epistemic theory. However, what seems to be the aftermath of this collapse is actually quite disastrous for the idea of Foundationalism itself. It seems that unless one can disprove the inherent link that seems to exist between foundational epistemic systems and the circular reasoning that it seems to necessitate in order to such a set of values that exist without justification. Descartes’ loss in this case seems to be at best a signal that Foundationalism should move in a new direction and rely less on appeals to things or beings such as God, and at worst, a deadly blow to all of Foundationalism itself.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that God is not chasing his tail, but we humans are chasing our own. If our definition of a non-deceiving god requires us to clearly and distinctly perceive god, who we need for this perception, then the question can be brought back all the way to whether Descarte was correct in his foundational beliefs. If there is a circular reference being made, then I would think that there is a problem with Descarte’s beliefs. His attempt to justify this circle is that God will not be need for us to perceive, he is merely there for the memory of perception. My question is why do we have to invoke God at all. Why do we even assume that an omnipotent being, either benevolent or deceiving, even exists? If we remove God from the equation, then we can perhaps come to a simpler conclusion that is noncircular. The replacement for god could be similar to the laws and theorems that are used in physics that we have proven have governed the world. It could be then that the laws might be wrong, but we could also use the anthropic principle to claim that we are reason that these laws “exist”. More accurately these laws are what they are due to the amount of understanding humans possess. So then the argument moves on to humans, and their ability to understand. This also seems circular since to perceive clearly and distinctly, we need to know how much we understand which needs to be perceived clearly and distinctly. So if god is not the problem in the original statement, perhaps the foundational statement needs to be changed. If this is the case, then Descarte is wrong in that we humans can even perceive something distinctly and clearly. Thus his case of foundationalism is wrong.
ReplyDeleteDescartes lived his entire life gaining amazing knowledge from the world around him; he truly was a brilliant mind. But in order for him to believe in his ideas, he needed to know that knowledge truly existed and that his ideas were grounded in truth. He believed that god was center to his knowledge and any idea has to be clear and distinct in order exist. This kind of thought is definitely circular in pattern because there is no way of knowing what came first god or the clear and distinct perception of god. If you suppose that god came first then you would still have to clearly and distinctly perceive him in order for him to exist. If you supposed that clear and distinct perception came first you would need god in order to ensure that what you perceive is true. Basically, it comes down to the fact that you really can't have one of these things without the other. Clear and distinct perception and god are undeniably linked, so to me, there is no question that Arnauld is correct. Descartes tries to escape the circle by saying that god is perfect and anything that is perfect exists, but I don't think that this really strengthens his argument in any way. To me, it seems like a botched way to escape circular reasoning that is already flawed. If your argument is circular it must mean that you're missing something, but I don't agree with what Descartes decides to prove. If something is perfect it has to exist...but what is perfect? Isn't everyone's view of perfection different? I find this solution to be very open ended.
ReplyDeleteI do believe Antoine Arnauld proves Descartes wrong. Even though Descartes believes that a “non-deceiving” God is the reason for all beliefs, without a clear perception of principles and ideas then there can be no God. Circular reasoning doesn’t prove anything because proving something results in going back to the original argument. Descartes’s Cartesian Circle states that all knowledge comes from the undeceiving and omnipotent God. We understand this because we clearly and distinctly perceive him to be true. But then this clear perception is from the idea that we know that here is an undeceiving God. So this circular reasoning cannot make sense. To use this reasoning to justify other beliefs is to believe in something we cannot technically prove. We don’t know if there is a deceiving being who is lying and tricking us, instead we are told to believe that God is undeceiving. So we are asked to base everything upon something that isn’t proven. If God is non-deceiving, the amount of lies, mistakes and destruction that happens every day shouldn’t be possible unless it is willed by the non-deceiving God. Through this, Arnauld is correct about the error in Descartes’s theory. We cannot judge on God and therefore cannot have clear principles or ideas.
ReplyDelete