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?
I believe that Arnalud is completely correct. Descartes only believes in a non-deceiving G-d because of the notion that everything perceived is true. However, he states that believing that requires a belief in G-d. However, what convinced me most of this truth comes in Descartes's response to this notion, which I believe failed.
ReplyDeleteAfter being accused of this circular reasoning, Descartes defends himself by saying, "I have already made an adequate explanation of this point in my reply to the Second Objections, where I made a distinction between what we in fact perceive clearly and what we remember having perceived clearly on a previous occasion," (Objections and Replies). This reply really makes no stride in proving that his reasoning is not circular, instead it just provides reason in a continual belief in G-d. If one were to perceive G-d clearly once, he could go on his whole life and remember this fact, not exactly how he got there, but can remember it as truth. I wholeheartedly agree with this, but this hypothetical person must get to that conclusion first. Descartes's response does not disrupt any part of the circular argument, because you would still need to know that G-d is no deceiver to prove what you perceive is true. In this sense, however, his response provides a basis for believing that anything exists once it is proven because you can just remember back to the time when you did prove that it exists.
So, in short, Descartes' response to the circular argument does add some more expansive and easy-to-comprehend context to some of Descartes's arguments. However, it does not overall disrupt the circle of his argument, since it does not indicate any other way to confirm that everything we perceive is truly there.
You have to make a pretty monumental mistake for it to get its own name, and in his meditations, Descartes makes an argument that was so circular, it not only got its own name, but was named after him: the Cartesian Circle. To be certain of anything, Descartes established “a general rule that everything I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true,” (24). As explained in the question, to clearly and distinctly perceive something, Descartes posits that there must be a non-deceiving god that created us in a way that our clear perceptions would not deceive us. We must emphasize that this god must be non-deceiving, because Descartes introduced the very plausible idea of an evil genius - an all powerful being that deceives us all into perceiving everything around us incorrectly - in Meditation 1. Though he never fully disproves this idea (outlined in my last blog post), Descartes assumes that god is good and would not deceive us; this non-deceiving god is who we will focus on for the rest of this text.
ReplyDeleteThe issue comes about when we try to find proof that god exists, because to prove his existence, we must have clear and distinct perceptions of him (or it). Do you see the problem? To be sure that our perceptions are true, we must have a non deceiving god, but to be sure this god exists, we must have a clear and distinct perception of him. How do we know our perceptions are true, if we are still trying to prove god even exists?
From the start, Descartes’ opposers have pointed out this problem, yet still we see that Descartes has not become obsolete by any stretch of the imagination. Why? Maybe it is because his argument to the accusations was strong. In one such response, he says “As soon as we think we correctly perceive something, we are spontaneously convinced that it is true. Now if this conviction is so firm that it is impossible for us to ever have any reason for doubting what we are convinced of, then there are no further questions to ask,” (141). Though this argument does a good job of reiterating the first argument from the Cartesian circle, he never really explains how we can be certain that these perceptions come from a non-deceiving god, and if we aren’t certain that there isn’t a deceiver, then it breaks down the whole argument. Although we may be spontaneously convinced that a good, non-deceiving god exists, how do we really know that without falling back into the circle. Descartes also makes the memory argument against the Cartesian circle saying “we can know nothing for certain until we are aware that God exists, [he] expressly declared that [he] was speaking only of knowledge of those conclusions which can be recalled,” (139). In this argument, God only allows us to remember what we already know, but again he fails to disprove how we know this god isn’t a deceiver. Maybe then, Descartes’ Meditations are still important, because regardless of the Cartesian circle, Descartes’ most famous idea, the Cogito, still stands. The Cogito posits the reasoning that because I think, I just exist in some way. Whether or not we can prove anything is true, whether everything is or is not a deception, we still are thinking. Our thoughts may be wrong, but they exist, so we must exist. This Cogito argument is truly where I think Descartes defeats true skepticism, regardless of whether or not he defeats the Cartesian circle. By proving we can be certain of one thing, that I exist, Descartes defeats skepticism by proving that we can not cast everything into doubt.
Cont.
ReplyDeleteZeroing back in on the Cartesian circle, I don’t think Descartes disproves it properly and Arnauld is correct. Does this make every subsequent he says obsolete? Well maybe to a true philosopher, because when something is in doubt, that is just as good as saying it is false. To me though, the Cartesian circle means I take everything with a grain of salt, but doesn’t render everything false. One day, if we can prove that a god exists, concretely, then all of his subsequent arguments become valid. There is significant importance in these arguments, and I don’t think they ought to be ignored due to the Cartesian circle.
In Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, he famously establishes the principle of clarity and distictness, which is in turn used to support the existence of God. As Descartes ponders his own dependency, he comes to formulate “a clear and distinct idea of…God.” and simply because he has that idea and exists, he can “draw the obvious conclusion that God also exists”(53). Simply put, Descartes claims:
ReplyDeleteIf God exists, our clear perceptions are true
God exists because he is clearly perceived
This claim spurs the birth of the Cartesian circle, Descartes’ logical fallacy regarding the existence of God. The circle has created global debate, sparking controversy between philosophers like Antoine Arnauld, who famously arraigned Descartes for his use of circular argumentation. In layman’s terms, circular reasoning is when x is true because of y, and y is true because of x. This is a kind of logical fallacy as it uses a conclusion as a premise, trying to apply the claim to prove the claim.
Arnauld expresses his dismay regarding the circle, stating, “I have one further worry, namely how [Descartes] 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” (CSM II 150/AT VII 214 - IOP). Here, Arnauld clearly illustrates the circularity in Descartes reasoning, as he highlights Descartes claims that the principle of clarity is reliable due to God’s existence, and God exists because of the principle of clarity.
Descartes relies on the principle of clarity to support the notion that God exists. However, he also relies on the notion of that God exists to support the principle of clairty. As neither are true without the other, this argumentation creates an endless loop. I affirm the concerns presented in Arnauld’s objection to Descartes, as the Cartesian circle is riddled with potential flaws. As Arnauld highlights, the arguments circularity and reliance on untrue claims invalidate Descartes reasoning for the existence of God. While Descartes doesn’t definitely confirm the existence of God, his insights have led to further arugmetns which have produced results.
Antoine Arnauld is correct, as Descartes’ proof of God’s existence relies on clear and distinct perception, a principle that… relies on God’s existence. Descartes first claims that knowledge is derived from clear and distinct perception- one and one adding to two would be considered clear and distinct while knowing exactly how many atoms exist in the universe is not. Descartes defines the principle inversely using doubt; if it is doubtable, it is not true. Here, Descartes asserts that he has a clear and distinct perception of God as a supremely perfect being with no flaws. Relying on his principle, he knows that God must exist. Unfortunately for Descartes, his argument reveals its circularity in this statement. To know what could be clear and distinct, Descartes turns to his newly proven God; Descartes claims a benevolent God would not deceive humans as deception originates from imperfection which is impossible for a supremely perfect being. This is to defeat his “evil genius” skeptical argument. Sadly, it doesn’t do the job. Using God to validate his clear and distinct perception argument is invalid when God is only validated by the clear and distinct perception argument. Descartes attempts to salvage the remains of his argument by claiming that God is not necessary to protect clear and distinct perception, but that God only protects the memory of the perception itself. Overall, I agree with Arnauld’s depiction of the Cartesian Circle, as Descartes’ circular reasoning lends the philosopher no assistance in proving God’s existence.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAntonie Arnauld’s critique of Descartes' circular reasoning is true as Descartes' principle of clear and distinct ideas relies on the existence of a non-deceiving God, while the evidence for a non-deceiving God is laid on the foundations of clear and distinct ideas. In an attempt to affirm foundationalism to prove the existence of God, Descartes establishes that the senses can be deceptive. He explains that in a dream, sensory experiences can be just as vivid and convincing as if they were perceived in reality, so our senses cannot be trusted and conclusions obtained from them are unreliable. Then, in his Cogito argument, he achieves his famous conclusion, “I think, therefore I am,” as the one infallible truth to build his arguments upon. He explains existence is so self-evident that it cannot be doubted, and perceptions which he perceives just as, "clearly and distinctly,” to be true as well.
Descartes then proposes several arguments for a god’s existence and contends that a God must be perfect. Descartes does not assume the existence of a non-deceiving God to establish clear and distinct ideas. Instead, he argues that the certainty of clear and distinct ideas is the key to proving the existence of a non-deceiving God. By establishing the reliability of clear and distinct ideas, Descartes can then argue that these ideas must be the result of a benevolent and non-deceiving God, which then he can secure the reliability of his argument. Antoine Arnauld critiques the relationship between these two ideas.
Anuald outlines that the principle of clear and distinct ideas presupposes the existence of a non-deceiving God, while the proof of a non-deceiving God relies on the reliability of clear and distinct ideas. This reliance, known as the Cartesian Circle, undermines Descartes' goal of establishing foundational beliefs and a perfect god’s existence.
In response to the accusation of this fault, Descartes states “Since God is the supreme being he must also be supremely good and true.--Everything within us must have been bestowed on us by God–Moreover, we have a real faculty for recognizing the truth and distinguishing it from falsehood.” Here, he seems to miss Arnauld's point, tgat this line of reasoning still assumes God's existence to validate knowledge, but the knowledge is needed to prove God. This loop remains unresolved in Descartes' arguments. While an additional argument might potentially break this cycle, Arnauld's critique highlights a significant vulnerability in Descartes' philosophical framework.
In conclusion, Antoine Arnauld's critique reveals a circular flaw established in Descartes' philosophy as the reliability of clear and distinct ideas and the existence of a perfect God rely on each other, creating a problematic closed dependence.