1. The Rationalists: Descartes Certainty: Self and God
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

2. Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
Outline
Meditation 2:
The Cogito
I am a thinking thing
The piece of Wax
Conclusion
Meditation 3:
A general rule for truth: clear and distinct ideas
The existence of God (Proof 1)
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

3. Meditation 2: Introduction
Summing up:
Doubt: Radical, Hyperbolic, Methodological
No source of knowledge passed the test : senses – dream argument, reason – evil genius
Doubtful hence considered as false: External world, personal body, rational truths
Meditation 2:
Look at the title!!
“Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That it is Better Known than the Body”
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

4. Meditation 2 – The Cogito
Prospect for research:
Certainty in any case
One single certainty would be enough: Archimedes
The Cogito:
1. Resists the Evil Genius Argument
2. Problems with interpretation:
- Inference or limit of the doubt
- genuine intellectual and subjective experience
 The Cogito is a Subjective Truth
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

5. Meditation 2 – I am a thinking thing
Question of Method: How am I to figure out what I am?
1. Against Definitions
2. The method of Doubt is universal – apply it here !
What did I used to think I am:
1. An well known body
2. Equipped with an incomprehensible soul
This is the scholastic view!
How does it face the doubt?
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

6. Meditation 2 – I am a thinking thing
What am I?
1. Not my body
2. A thinking thing !
Problem of interpretation: Thing = substance?
What is a thinking thing? Broad definition: any mental activity (anything not body like), including sensations !
Descartes’ paradox: Subjectivity is the road to truth!
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

7. Meditation 2 – The piece of wax
The point of the passage: Look at the conclusion!!
But I need to realize that the perception of the wax is neither a seeing, nor a touching, nor an imagining. Nor has it ever been, even though it previously seem so; rather it is an inspection on the part of the mind alone [...]. (33)
So: the point of the passage: We know things through the understanding, not through our senses and imagination
Descartes is making an epistemological point
Problem: how is this relevant to the claim that we know our mind better than our body?
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

8. Meditation 2 – The piece of wax
Argument:
P1: The piece of wax can change;
P2: But what we call the piece of wax is still the same;
CC1: there is something I know of the wax which remains the same when the piece of wax undergoes changes;
Unstated Premise: only unchanging aspects of something constitute what I know truly of it;
P3: the sensitive qualities do not remain
CC2: the sensitive qualities are not what the piece of wax as I truly know it;
P4: what remains is that it is extended, flexible and mutable;
CC3: Instead, I truly know as the piece of wax truly as: extended, flexible and mutable
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

9. Meditation 2 – The piece of wax
With which faculty do I know the piece of wax?
- Not the senses
- Not the imagination
- Perception of the mind
Generalization:
Any sensation in fact relies on a judgment of understanding
Example: hats in the street
We know everything through the understanding
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

10. Meditation 2 – The piece of wax
Do I know my mind better than my body?
- It does not seem to follow: distinction faculty / object:
I know better with my mind ≠ I know my mind better
- Possible hidden premise:
I know better what is distinct – i.e. of an unmixed nature
Descartes has not shown his main claim
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

11. Meditation 2 – Conclusion
The Cogito: One single certainty as a subjective evidence
Problem with the Cogito: thinking thing and substance
The piece of wax: our mind takes part in the entirety of knowledge, even the perception of sensible particulars
Problem with the piece of wax: we haven’t shown that we know our mind better than our body, unless further assumptions are made.
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

12. Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
Outline
Meditation 2:
The Cogito
I am a thinking thing
The piece of Wax
Conclusion
Meditation 3:
A general rule for truth: clear and distinct ideas
The existence of God (Proof 1)
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

13. Meditation 3: Introduction
Summing up:
One single certainty
Importance of the Mind
Meditation 3:
Look at the title: “Concerning God; That He Exists”
Why proving the existence of God????
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

14. Meditation 3 – Clear and Distinct Ideas
General rule:
Everything that I very clearly and very distinctly perceive is true
Argument
I am certain that I am a thinking thing
There is nothing that assures of this proposition is true except a clear and distinct perception of it
Hence, I can be certain of everything that I perceive in the same way, that is, clearly and distinctively
Truth does not take anything more than
a clear and distinct idea
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

15. Meditation 3 – Why do we need God?
Clear and Distinct ideas:
1. Certain at the moment of the intuition
2. Doubtful when attention turned to Evil Genius
Clear and Distinct Intuition = criterion of actual truth
We need a truthful God for eternal truths
Descartes will try to prove: (1) That God exists and (2) That He is truthful
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

16. Meditation 3 – That God Exists
Descartes discusses the origin of our Ideas: Why?
1. we are stuck in our minds
2. what if we had an idea which requires that something else exist?
This idea is going to be the idea of God
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

17. Meditation 3 – That God Exists
First round: Do my ideas correspond to external things?
1. Three kinds of ideas: innate, adventitious, fictitious
2. What do I used to believe that adventitious ideas come from external things?
a. Nature taught me? natural impulses = truth?
b. Independent of my will? Another faculty than will?
c. Resemblance with external objects? Sun!?
Dead end! We are still stuck…
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

18. Meditation 3 – That God Exists
Second round: The argument from the objective reality of ideas
1. Three kinds of reality for ideas:
a. Material reality – all ideas are equally made of thought
b. Formal reality – ideas all differ in terms of what they represent
c. Objective reality – ideas differ in terms of the degree of reality of their object
Idea of God: greatest objective reality
Be careful:
Objective reality of the idea ≠ Reality of the object
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

19. Meditation 3 – That God Exists
Second round: The argument from the objective reality of ideas
(1. Three kinds of reality for ideas)
2. I cannot be the cause of the idea of God
a. Causal Principle – appeal to natural light
b. Two kinds of object for my ideas: (1) composite, (2) corporeal substances, (3) God
c. I can be the cause of (1) and (2)
c. I cannot be the cause of (3)
I cannot be the cause of my idea of the actual infinite
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

20. Meditation 3 – That God Exists
Third round: God as the cause of my existence
Descartes’ cosmological argument
1. Candidates: (1) Myself, (2) my parents or anything less than God, (3) God
2. Hyp (1): No, or else I could not conceive of my imperfections
3. Objection: what if I have always exited? No, because persistence in time is as demanding as creation (!)
4. Hyp (2): No, for otherwise infinite regress
God is the first cause which causes itself
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

21. Meditation 3 – Conclusion
The third meditation provides us with:
1. A general rule for finding actual truth : clear and distinct intuitions
2. Proofs that God exists, in order to secure the persistence of the truth of clear and distinct intuitions:
(1) From the objective reality of the idea of the infinite
(2) As the first non contingent cause of contingent existence
God appears in this meditation as the “mark of the craftsman impressed upon his work”
If God can be shown not to be a deceiver, then we’re good for rational truths!
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana