descartes second maxim. flawed?

Question

i have no argument with his first maxim
basically
i doubt everything -> i am doubting -> someone must be doing this doubting -> i am
(cognito ergo sum)


but i wonder about his second
i have the image of a perfect being in my mind ->as an imperfect being i would not be able to put it there myself -> someone else must have put it there -> god exists

the problem about this (among others) as i see it is that if he was an imperfect being he would have no way of knowing if the image was perfect or not. a perfect being would be to vast to comprehend. and as it can not be comprehended its limits if the do or do not exist remain unknown. as he only has himself to compare with he can only conclude that this image is of a being better than him.

thoughts?

Answer 1

Both attempts that Descartes make in his 'Third Meditation' are completely laden with unverified assumptions and sloppy logic.

First he suggests that he has in his mind an IDEA of such an entity. Because nothing can come from nothing, he argues, the idea must have come from somewhere and the only place for it to have come from is outside himself, a.k.a. reality.

Then he backs up his idea of the existence of God in another way. He suggests that he cannot be sure that he has always existed, nor that he is perfect. God, on the other hand, must logically have always existed and must be perfect. Therefore God must have created him, and not he God.

Do these work? No.

Take his assumption that 'nothing comes from nothing'... how does he know that? He doesn't - the assumption came from nothing, thereby disproving it!

Likewise with his assumption that ideas must have a basis in reality. In fact, there are numerous ideas that are purely conceptual and have no real-life analogue. Take the mathematical idea of a 'plane' (or all of math, for that matter): are there any infinitely extending two-dimensional objects in the real world? If there are, I certainly haven't seen nor heard of them!

And if his ideas of perfection and God are off, then perhaps it is quite possible that God is not NECESSARILY perfect or always in existance. Just because Descartes can't imagine it, it hardly means it isn't so.

Even theologians take a bit of umbrage at his attempt to DEFINE god into existence. St Thomas Aquinas, for example, felt that there were plenty of great ways to prove God exists and that simply defining God into existence not only demeans God but also implies a lack of divine free will in the matter (as if God HAD to exist whether or not he wanted to).

Some suggest that the only reason Descartes put that nonsense in to begin with was to placate the religious censors who might otherwise have prevented his work from ever being published. I suppose we'll never know for sure about that one...

Answer 2

At the time of Descartes, intellectual proofs of the existence of God were not only popular, were also of serious interest to the educated. Descartes was explaining why he believed in the existence of God. Other philosophers have debunked his reasoning, plus presented better proofs. I cannot remember the exact debunking used in this case.

I can say that as imperfect being can conceive of a perfect being. It all depends on what you call perfect. It is all too easy to hide behind big words. In such cases, it is best to ask for elaboration.

His conclusion that since Descartes did not put this idea of perfection in himself, God must have put it there, therefore God exist is false. We all have bad ideas, where we cannot trace intellectual ancestry. We also have self generated content, as in dreams. The conclusion does not hold water.

Answer 3

The point Descartes is making in the second maxim is somewhat subtle. What he is trying to argue is he has this idea of an infinity perfect being in his mind, and that precisely because he cannot comprehend this idea, therefore something other than himself must have created it. And since it does not make sense for a finite creature like himself to create an incomprehensible idea of a perfect being, therefore an actual infinitely perfect being must have created the idea in his mind. Therefore, "God" as this infinite being must exist.

When rereading Descartes' Meditations, keep in mind that at this point he is focusing on the origin and nature of ideas he has of himself and of this idea of the infinite. He is attempting to argue that from the very idea of the infinite, therefore an actual infinite must exist.

Many have criticized his argument of course, but it's not as simple as it first looks. Good luck.

Answer 4

The problem is the same as in Aristotle's "unmoved mover".

There MUST exist an unmoved mover by a priori reasoning,
accd'ng to Aristotle. I mean, cuz stuff HAS to be started off moving from SOME source, eh?

Just as there MUST be a Perfectly existing God if i have an idea of perfection, since i am not perfect and therefore someone PERFECT must have put it there, accd'ng to Descartes' a priori reasoning.

But I dont buy a priori reasoning... Reasoning must be expressed in language, and language is embedded in cultural learning experiences...

What would be the content of "reasoning" if not LANGUAGE?

Language, or symbolic images, is the essential content of reason...
And language is learned a posteriori...

Answer 5

Descartes quote takes into account your reasoning.
He says he has the image, not the understanding of
the image. Therefore, Descartes, being rational, is
considering how the image could be authentic without
knowing the extent of its origin.
"as he only has himself to compare with he can only
conclude that this image is of a being better than him."
In my opinion, although you are correct in the strict
sense of your statement, I think that Descartes's quote
holds because if a being better than him exists then
that gives rise to the existence of God external who
creates that better being(with the possibility, but not
requirement, that God is in fact the better being).

Edit:
In response to Doctor Y,
Nothing comes from nothing must be true because
nothing can't come from anything; nothingness is
a zero dimensional plane which projects onto itself
and itself is nothing.

Answer 6

I consider the respond above mine... human beings in many circumstances make the blunders of theorizing appropriate to the interpretations, extremely than the originals of their respective languages. The assertion "i think of subsequently i'm." has no genuine cost because of the fact it compares an action to a situation without reason or result. It means that each little thing that thinks - additionally exists. that's suitable to maximum yet no longer provable or particular. Secondly, it includes the slightest implication that if one ceases to think of that for the time of addition they must give up to exist... many yahoo customers could disappear into skinny air. Now, if the assertion have been to be "thinking is the clarification for being" it may nonetheless be incorrect yet a minimum of provable or disprovable. the unique assertion is neither. i could additionally want to ask how this assertion applies (if in any respect) to the internet... Does it exist? Does it think of? If our strategies create a theory - does that theory exist? If strategies are transferable than does that make existance transferable? Now you incredibly see what a bounce this assertion makes and how incredibly open that's to person interpretation. you're able to define theory. you're able to define existance. you're able to % out the dating that "subsequently" implies. finally, you're able to evaluate all entities that think of and exist before accepting it as a philosophical certainty.

Answer 7

A lot of people have no idea about Physics and they want to learn Meta stuff. Well, tell you something; IF you can't swim, you better stay on the shore, unless you don't care, in that case, don't forget about the sharks either!0!

Good luck!

CAUTION: Beware of Metaphysics!0!

Answer 8

I agree with you as long as that is actually his second maxim, which I know nothing else about.
On that note, his first maxim seems redundant.

Answer 9

No, it's not flawed. It's just more metaphysical than the other one.