Descartes Connection Principle Analysis

The most serious objection to Descartes claims attacks the Connection Principle. Without the Connection Principle, Descartes has nothing outside of himself. The Connection Principle is based on the idea that everything has a cause. His entire argument for the Existence of God and by extension, the external world, relies on the premise that it is impossible for him to have an innate idea that does not have any correlation to the real world. Descartes considered the notion that the idea of a perfect being was passed down from generation to generation and taught to him by his parents, but he ultimately decided that for it to be passed down, the idea had to come from somewhere. Descartes never truly considered the implications of a human-built …show more content…
He can claim it’s innate all he wants, but there is no way for him to really know unless he experiences amnesia or an evil genius erases his memory. In the First Mediation, Descartes recognizes that his “old familiar opinions keep coming back, and against [his] will they capture [his] belief.” He continues that thought by claiming he will do his best to consider all his prior beliefs imaginary. In principle, this is a nice attempt, but practically, ideas stick with you no matter how much you want to erase them. An idea is like cancer, once in someone’s head it spreads rapidly and uncontrollably. Descartes attempts to control his idea of God by lessening his degree of belief, and building up a rational argument to support his idea, but I don’t think he ever truly stopped believing in God, he spoke about God as a given, even after “demolishing all beliefs.” Instead, its’ more accurate to say that Descartes squashed his beliefs until he could come up with a rational argument to support them and bring them back to the center. He claims he retained the idea, not the belief, but that simply isn’t true if you take the time and attention to meditate about his work. In the First Meditation, Descartes says, “Let us grant them—for purposes of argument—that there is no God, and theology is fiction,” revealing that he considers that belief true, even after “demolishing” all …show more content…
Because if things don’t have a cause, they are innate. Our opinions differ, when it comes to determining what causes an innate idea. I don’t believe that an innate idea necessarily has concrete value in the world, children from all corners of the earth have an innate fear of nonexistent monsters. Yet no one is claiming they must exist simply because multiple people reached the same conclusion. Therefore, my biggest objections are: things may not need a cause, and Descartes was unsuccessful at demolishing his