We must also keep our will in line with what we know, as humans Descartes argues that we wish to have infinite free will, this causes us to allow our will to outpace our intellect. As Descartes scholar Michael Della Rocca (2006) states, “The will…is the active faculty within the mind (Passions I, art. 17). It assents to, denies, suspends judgment on the ideas…(p.146)” Descartes says that our will can cause us to make judgments before we fully understand something. If we are presented with an idea, it is not until we enact our will upon it (and subsequently our judgment) that we are able to arrive at …show more content…
In this objection Arnauld argues that using Descartes’ argument for truth would only allow for distinctiveness and subsequently truth on matters concerning the sciences. We would be unable to apply this same argument to matters concerning faith and human emotion which we cannot distinctly and clearly attend to. Arnauld then goes on to discuss Augustine’s three cognitive capacities, “knowing, believing, and opining.” These three capacities seem a much sounder argument in arriving at truth, as we can attribute truth to that which we know. Since Descartes posits that our beliefs are controlled by our will, and that once we enact our will upon our beliefs we have arrived at truth he opens truth to great skepticism. Arnauld argues that compiling “knowing, believing, and opining” into the same action (in this case the will) we open all knowledge to extreme skepticism; everything can be questioned if we must wait until we have clear and distinct