In the third meditation, Descartes attempts to progress through deriving a method for acquiring “certain” knowledge from the cogito argument and proving the existence of God. However, Arnauld objects to Descartes’ method as proof of God’s existence, claiming that Descartes engages in circular reasoning; the conclusion is used to justify one of the premises that are used to support that conclusion. For Arnauld, Descartes is using God’s existence to prove that clear and distinct perceptions are true, despite having used clear and distinct perceptions to prove God’s existence. In this essay, I will argue that Descartes does not engage in circular reasoning, but that Arnauld’s objection is justifiable and calls attention to the dubiousness of Descartes’
…show more content…
Given that Descartes admitted that his clear and distinct rule could be doubted and that the demon-doubt must be eliminated before it can be trusted, and then used this rule in disproving this doubt, this objection is accurate. Furthermore, the underlying aspect of this objection is that Arnauld considers Descartes’ proof of clear and distinct perceptions to be weak (Hatfield, 2014: 171), and so assumed that Descartes has reasoned circularly out of necessity. The objection of circularity, potentially, has detrimental consequences for the project of the meditations, given that its aim is to develop ‘firm and durable’ knowledge (Descartes, 2003: 18), and to show that Descartes’ method (which clear and distinct perceptions and God’s existence are central to) for attaining this highest level of knowledge is full-proof …show more content…
I have also shown that Arnauld’s objection is extremely detrimental to the meditations and that although Descartes has potentially cleared himself of having reasoned in a circular fashion, he has not sufficiently proved that clear and distinct perceptions, his principal rule for gaining knowledge, are all true. In short: Descartes’ arguments are unpersuasive even if they are not circular, and therefore there is nothing further gained from the meditations past the
Given that Descartes admitted that his clear and distinct rule could be doubted and that the demon-doubt must be eliminated before it can be trusted, and then used this rule in disproving this doubt, this objection is accurate. Furthermore, the underlying aspect of this objection is that Arnauld considers Descartes’ proof of clear and distinct perceptions to be weak (Hatfield, 2014: 171), and so assumed that Descartes has reasoned circularly out of necessity. The objection of circularity, potentially, has detrimental consequences for the project of the meditations, given that its aim is to develop ‘firm and durable’ knowledge (Descartes, 2003: 18), and to show that Descartes’ method (which clear and distinct perceptions and God’s existence are central to) for attaining this highest level of knowledge is full-proof …show more content…
I have also shown that Arnauld’s objection is extremely detrimental to the meditations and that although Descartes has potentially cleared himself of having reasoned in a circular fashion, he has not sufficiently proved that clear and distinct perceptions, his principal rule for gaining knowledge, are all true. In short: Descartes’ arguments are unpersuasive even if they are not circular, and therefore there is nothing further gained from the meditations past the