Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy
Descartes' argument presented in Meditations on First Philosophy (1647), for both the empirical reality of the sensory, physical world and for the reality of God is a complex series of logical premises and conclusion that are based on ontological and teleological themes. By combining an ontological appraisal of subjective experience with a set of teleological premises that are ostensibly based on objective perception and that are also ostensibly verifiable in nature, Descartes establishes a philosophical basis for the existence of God that is well in-keeping with the sense of mind/body duality which pervaded the age of the Scientific Revolution. While it is perhaps arguable that Descartes arguments on the existence of God are, in some measure, meant to reconcile the dualities of mind/body; spirit/ matter, what exploitable weaknesses emerge from both the teleological and ontological arguments are based in this same sense of duality.
Mediation VI offers a further complication of dualistic principles when Descartes attempts to distinguish between imagining and knowing. This duality is key to understanding both the ontological and teleological arguments that Descartes wields in order to prove the existence of God. In the following anecdotal reference, Descartes establishes the schism between what si imagined and what is known by contrasting his imagined vision of a geometrical figure with its actual representation in three-dimensional space: "it may happen that, in conceiving a chiliogon, I confusedly represent some figure to myself, yet it is quite evident that this is not a chiliogon, since it in no wise differs from that which I would represent to myself, if I were to think of a myriogon," (Descartes, 1901, p. 41). The anecdotal evidence then indicates an ontological reality where the schism between what is imagined and what is known is delineated by nature.
What remains, regarding the teleological aspect of Descartes argument, is to fuse this acceptance of duality with its logical "purpose" or organic connection to God and the act of Creation. Because Creation extends, presumably, to both what is imagined and what is known, it is necessary for Descartes to explain why it should be so. The explanation is, of course, part of Descartes argument for the existence of God, expressed both logically (teleological) and intuitively (ontological). Predictably, the explanation for the necessity of the dualistic nature of the universe, according to Descartes, is based in further expressions of duality. For example, Descartes reasons that if it is possible for God to create all sensory objects, it is therefore possible to keep things separated from one-another -- with or without a discernable purpose. Therefore, the fact that a person is conscious of their own mind establishes the mind as a "thing" which is apprehended, but this apprehension is not based in the body-world. In other words, God is capable of establishing consciousness without a body just as God is capable of producing the body as a thing which remains separate from the mind.
The next step in Descartes' teleological argument is to connect the creation of the mind or self (as object) to the Creator. he accomplishes this by suggesting that because he subjectively possesses a will to perceive the world of external things as real and material, the will to see the world this way must be an indication of God's will and therefore if there is not a material world which stands independent from the mind, then God would have intentionally given his created mind a false sense of perception. Since God, by Descartes' reckoning, is "not a deceiver" (Descartes, 1901, p. 33) the world of material objects must be authentic. This line of reasoning would seem to contain a strong refutation of solipsism while simultaneously relying on solipsistic experiences for verification. That aside, Descartes' teleological argument reaches, at this point, a level of articulation which brings to mind his continued perception of a dualism between mind and body.
With this in mind, Descartes argues that God has placed within the created human mind a strong "belief" in God. Just as God placed within the created mind a strong sense of the material reality of the empirical universe, God "stamps" created consciousness with, not only self-awareness, but with awareness of diety. From this conclusion, Descartes contends that since God placed in created consciousness an instinct to understand the empirical world and an innate knowledge of God, then God must be a benevolent entity which has manifested its will toward creation through the various levels of human thought and imagination as well as in physical reality. He remarks that: "I can never be deceived; because every clear and distinct conception is doubtless something, and as such cannot owe its origin to nothing, but must of necessity have God for its author" (Descartes, 1901, p.34). This is a telescoped version of Descartes teleological argument, but it is fittingly tortured and circular in its logic -- enough so to establish the audacious conviction that Descartes held in his subjective experience of the world. This conviction stands, obviously, in direct opposition to Descartes assertion that ideas originate with God rather than within the individual.
The second form of argument that Descartes offers is based on ontological grounds. With this approach, Descartes fulfills the same kind of circular argument that led him through his survey of God's "targeted" form of creation. In the case of the phenomenology of the universe and human consciousness, Descartes imposes a state of "objectification" to his own being, and concludes that, because he is an imperfect being, he cannot have been his own creator. The existence of a God is implied in the phenomenology of reality itself. The creation of mind and body (and even the mind/body) fulfills a Divine purpose: "I find that I am "intermediate" between God and nothingness, between the supreme entity and nonentity" (Descartes, 1901, p.30) and furthermore, the conscious apprehension by man that man is "imperfect" only verifies the existence of God. Error, according to Descartes is proof of God's existence rather than God's absence: "I understand that I can err without God's having given me a special ability to do so. Rather, I fall into error because my God-given ability to judge the truth is not infinite." (Descartes, 1901, p.30) . So, in effect, due to the human propensity to "fall into error," the full nature of truth and of God have not, according to Descartes reasoning, been implanted directly into consciousness as was ostensibly the case with "instinctive" knowledge of diety and of the material world.
In fact, what Descartes means to suggest by way of his ontological argument is that knowledge of God is embedded in the fabric of sensory phenomenology the same way that a valley is a part of a mountain. Existence is predicated on God to the same degree that God is predicated on perfection; that is, in order for God to express creation perfectly, there must be existence. There is existence and consciousness, so there is a God. At this juncture, another duality, that between "truth" and "falsehood" is implied, with "truth," of course emanating from God and likewise, ideas being "true" in that they adhere to the admission of not only God, but of teleological design and ontological manifestation: "God thus internally disposes my thought, the more freely do I choose and embrace it; and assuredly divine grace and natural knowledge, very far from diminishing liberty, rather augment and fortify it." (Descartes, 1901, p.32) Expressed this way, it is literally impossible by Descartes' reckoning to experience any thought or experience which does not lead to the direct revelation of God and the direct expression of God's existence.
By considering the two forms of argument that Descartes stressed in striving to demonstrate the existence of God, both the teleological and ontological approaches suffer from the same reliance on subjective experience and circular reasoning. While it is understandable in a point-by-point manner just how and why Descartes wanted to construct parallel arguments based on observable reality and on intuitive experience, the consequence of the argument is not so much to confirm the existence of God, but to confirm the capacities and tendencies of the human psyche. Regarded in this light, Descartes long meditation on the existence of God and the nature of human consciousness emerges as more of an expressionistic manifesto of individuation and self-immersion than an empirical inquiry into the objective universe. Descartes, regardless of his acceptance of the inherent dualities expressed in nature, failed to reconcile the single most important duality that faces any conscious being: that between subjective and objective reality.
In some ways, Descartes' expression of ontological reality foreshadows the later developments of psychology forwarded by thinkers such as Carl Jung, but stops short of recognizing the individuation of the human Self, instead focusing on the revelatory nature of experience as it pertains to the manifestation of God's will. In short, Descartes views all cognition as the experience of God: "Thus I plainly see that the certainty and truth of all my knowledge derives from one thing: my thought of the true God" (Descartes, 1901, p.34). Such a statement is tantamount to saying: my thoughts are God. That suggestion is, of course, solipsistic, and it is ths sense of deep, unremitting solipsism expressed in both the teleological and ontological arguments offered by Descartes that most severely hamper the persuasiveness of his logic.
Reference
Descartes, Rene; Veitch, John, trans. (1901) Meditations of First Philosophy, Online. Internet. 22 Mar. 1997. Available: http://philos.wright.edu/DesCartes/MedE.html .
Good Links
www.paperpimp.biz
www.warpapers.weebly.com
www.poetrypapers.weebly.com
www.papaspapers.weebly.com
www.poepapers.weebly.com
www.plathpapers.yolasite.com
www.poetrycritiques.biz
ww.speakingofshakespeare.yolasite.com
