Does Descartes prove it rationally?
Does Descartes prove it rationally?
Introduction
The famous philosophical discourse by Rene Descartes which comprises six mediations gives a deep insight into nature of human mind, difference between truth and false and perceptions of reality and doubts (Skirry, 2008). Defining the basics of doubt and reality to steadily move towards the rational proof of existence of God, Descartes has elucidated an in-depth analysis of how man perceives the world around and how he should perceive it for better. The six meditations are worth a detailed analysis to comprehend the question of existence of God and nature of human mind. However, this short essay illuminates an argument based on an individual’s analysis of the Meditation II and III. In a personal opinion, Descartes has tried inside out to rationally prove the existence of God but still, it cannot be called as totally convincing or understandable. At times, the instances used are either too confusing or too far from perception of a normal, not-so-philosophical mind. The viewpoint is completely personal and does not intend to demean the author or his followers.
The Convincing Points
In the meditation II, he has poignantly moved towards showing how to prove that a thing exits. He has differentiated between an idea and a thing. But where he convinces is the clause in the
meditation III where he analyses the probable causes behind why he exists (Descartes, Meditation III). The options are as follows a) myself b) my always having existed c) my parents d) something less perfect than God and e) God. He logically proves the first four options to be untrue and hence, he takes the final option i.e. existence of God to be the only reason. For once, this argument seems logical.
The Loopholes
There are several examples which instead of taking the reader in depths of Descartes’ philosophy end up confusing him/her- building of the house, arrangement of small and big house, straight and crooked streets etc (Descartes, Meditation II). There are ardent book readers and experts on this subject who may found the book very interesting and clear in meaning. But for common folks, the book fails to keep the reader engrossed. Also, the arguments given cannot convince an atheist to believe in God. What if he left considering an option ‘f’ which relates existence of man to science? He has many times, talked in an ambiguous tone. Defying existence of God in one sentence and supporting His existence in the other. Also, certain arguments like “So God would not deceive me, and would not permit me to err without giving me a way to correct my errors (Meditation III)” are not really appealing.
Conclusion
He could prove his point with les of ambiguity. There could be use of relatable instances, rather than confusing. It could use more of relations from simple, real life and not imaginary situations. It did not seem rational but forced through hazy instances.
References
- Skirry, J. “Descartes, René: Overview [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]”. (Sept. 2008). Retrieved on 22 Mar 2013
- Descartes, R. “Meditations of First Philosophy”. Last amended 2007. Retrieved on 23 Mar 2013.
