Comparing Descartes Response To Montaigne's Argument

I will outline two related skeptical arguments made by Montaigne, explicate them, and then provide Descartes response to these arguments, followed by a brief examination to determine which argument hold more persuasive power. I will begin by outlining two arguments presented by Montaigne, and then expand upon them to better explain their meaning and significance.
The first argument I will discuss is the seventh argument presented by Montaigne in his work on skepticism, and proceeds as follows; “To judge appearances that we receive from subjects, we would need a judicatory instrument; to verify that instrument, we would need demonstration; to verify the demonstration, an instrument; here we are going round in a circle. Since the senses cannot …show more content…
To build his argument, Descartes begins by working with the premise of there being a God: “Clearly the idea of God, that is, the idea of a supremely perfect being, is one I discover to be no less within me than the idea of any figure or number. And that it belongs to God’s nature that he always exists is something I understand no less clearly and distinctly than is the case when I demonstrate in regard to some figure or number that something also belongs to the nature of that figure or number.” (Descartes, 59). In this quote, Descartes outlines why he believes that there is a God. The rationality he employs is based upon understanding the concept of God as being supremely perfect. In order for a God to be supremely perfect, he must have be divine in power, omnipotent, and possess all attributes in absolute perfection. The critical part of this argument is that God has perfection in all things, included in these perfections is existence. For if God were to lack existence, he would be lacking in some aspect, and not possess true perfection, for it is greater to exist than to not exist. Therefore, in order for God to be perfect, and to be all powerful, existence is a necessary part of him. Now that Gods existence has been …show more content…
To begin, Montaigne’s position is founded upon the assumption that all knowledge comes from the senses – this is what he bases his argument on, and because the senses are known to deceive, we cannot be certain of either the senses or the ability of the mind to think rationally, for if the mind can only work with the information provided to it through the senses, then there is no way for the mind to be certain of its ability to think rationally. Descartes on the other hand begins by demonstrating the existence of a God, and follows by establishing that this God is one who necessarily exists, and is not deceiving. When comparing the relative strength of these arguments, I believe that Descartes provides a firmer foundation for his position. Descartes has built his argument up from nothing, he began by doubting everything, from which he proceeded to formulate his position with underlying assumptions. Descartes can demonstrate the validity of his arguments, specifically through the use of the wax example, and ultimately has a larger framework of philosophical reasoning underlying his position than that of Montaigne. Further, Montaigne’s argument is weakened by his initial assumption that all knowledge comes from the senses. Descartes, by finding that the senses can be trusted, defeats this assumption as well as Montaigne’s