At the beginning of his fourth meditation, Descartes begins reflecting on the three main certainties that he has developed so far: 1) that God exists, 2) that God is not a deceiver, and 3) that God created him and is therefore responsible for all his faculties, including his faculty of judgment. Descartes seems satisfied with the first two convictions, however, he begins to explore the conflict that arises with the third; that, “if everything that is in me comes from God, and he did not endow me with a faculty for making mistakes, it appears that I can never go wrong” (Descartes and Cottingham 38). This dilemma, also known as the “Problem of Error”, prompts the need for Descartes to reconcile the two, seemingly contradictory positions. While
…show more content…
That is, is it ever possible for one to sincerely believe in something, just because they will to? According to Descartes will versus intellect argument, he seems to be asserting that the intellect puts forward propositions, and one’s will can choose to either believe them to be true or believe them to be false. But such an assertion does not seem plausible. For example, if a husband were to cheat on his wife, and the wife was presented with irrefutable evidence of his cheating, it seems incorrect to say that she “doesn’t believe” him to be cheating. While it is quite possible that she may not change her behavior in light of such knowledge (for example, file for divorce, confront her husband, etc.) that does not imply that the wife actually “believes” that her husband is not cheating. If one were able to will their beliefs, then it seems that one’s beliefs would be irrespective of truth, and therefore, unrepresentative of the reality in which we live.
Additionally, even if one were to grant Descartes’ implied “believing at will” theory, it then seems that the next predicament would be to determine what exactly the intellect is able to “clearly and distinctly” perceive. For example, Descartes states that clear and distinct perceptions are those that are irrefutable by the will, That is, they are so clearly and distinctly perceived that the will cannot help but to affirm them. However, the problem arises in determining whether an inability to deny a clear and distinct perception makes it in fact a clear and distinct perception, or rather, a misuse of one’s
That is, is it ever possible for one to sincerely believe in something, just because they will to? According to Descartes will versus intellect argument, he seems to be asserting that the intellect puts forward propositions, and one’s will can choose to either believe them to be true or believe them to be false. But such an assertion does not seem plausible. For example, if a husband were to cheat on his wife, and the wife was presented with irrefutable evidence of his cheating, it seems incorrect to say that she “doesn’t believe” him to be cheating. While it is quite possible that she may not change her behavior in light of such knowledge (for example, file for divorce, confront her husband, etc.) that does not imply that the wife actually “believes” that her husband is not cheating. If one were able to will their beliefs, then it seems that one’s beliefs would be irrespective of truth, and therefore, unrepresentative of the reality in which we live.
Additionally, even if one were to grant Descartes’ implied “believing at will” theory, it then seems that the next predicament would be to determine what exactly the intellect is able to “clearly and distinctly” perceive. For example, Descartes states that clear and distinct perceptions are those that are irrefutable by the will, That is, they are so clearly and distinctly perceived that the will cannot help but to affirm them. However, the problem arises in determining whether an inability to deny a clear and distinct perception makes it in fact a clear and distinct perception, or rather, a misuse of one’s