In Descartes’ Meditations of First Philosophy, he spends the First Meditation rationalizing that the senses could be deceiving us and that they are not foundational beliefs (Descartes, pg.12). He later justifies that we do not view the essence or true nature of objects through the senses, but rather, through the intellect. However, he agrees that it was God who permits us the capacity of the senses and the involuntary use of them. So then why does God give us sensory perceptions? If the true nature and essence of the material world can only be viewed through the intellect, then why not make the intellect the innate way in which we view the world? Descartes believes he has proven up to this point that a non-deceiving God exists (Descartes, pg.35);
…show more content…
60-1). For example, knowing that something is hot is an unwilled task you commit through the sense of touch. On the contrary, if you were to gather such information through the intellect, this once easy and unwilled task becomes a difficult and willed expedition. Thus, God provides us with the senses as an efficient way to determine whether or not something is beneficial or harmful to the body. Another good example of this is hunger. We feel hungry without having the will to feel hungry – it is an involuntary response. The process of hunger is an automatic response that allows us to feel and know that we need food. Without our senses, we would have to use our intellect to realize we are hungry, which is detrimental because we could damage our bodies by not feeding them proper nutrition in an efficient manner. It is for this reason, Descartes believes, that God gave us the senses. He did not give us the senses as a way to deceive us from the true nature and essence of objects. Instead, he imposes us with the senses to use as functional representations of objects in the world and their potential value they inflict on …show more content…
If we were to presume that everything that Descartes has asserted up to this point (a non-deceiving God exists, the senses do not show the true nature or essence of objects, and when we do not have clear and distinct perception, we err) is true, then I believe that Descartes’ argument begins as a worthy one. The senses seem to help us govern our way through the world. We can tell what is damaging and harmful the majority of the time when we use our senses. However, there are a few exceptions that I feel undermine his argument. For example, poison ivy looks incredibly similar, if not identical, to any normal ivy. Descartes is an occasionalist and believes that everything is caused by God (Descartes, pg.48) and that He gave us the senses to help preserve our bodies, so then why do our senses perceive poison ivy as looking like any normal harmless ivy? This is deceitful. If God granted me the senses to help determine what is beneficial and detrimental to my body, shouldn’t poison ivy look or smell vastly different from normal ivy? Or, to take it one step further, if God is not a deceiver, why does poison ivy even exist in the first place? Another example is the berries that are found on holly plants. These berries look like any normal red berry, however, they are poisonous to humans. Furthermore, most birds love these berries and eat them quite often; while doing no harm to the birds. If God is
60-1). For example, knowing that something is hot is an unwilled task you commit through the sense of touch. On the contrary, if you were to gather such information through the intellect, this once easy and unwilled task becomes a difficult and willed expedition. Thus, God provides us with the senses as an efficient way to determine whether or not something is beneficial or harmful to the body. Another good example of this is hunger. We feel hungry without having the will to feel hungry – it is an involuntary response. The process of hunger is an automatic response that allows us to feel and know that we need food. Without our senses, we would have to use our intellect to realize we are hungry, which is detrimental because we could damage our bodies by not feeding them proper nutrition in an efficient manner. It is for this reason, Descartes believes, that God gave us the senses. He did not give us the senses as a way to deceive us from the true nature and essence of objects. Instead, he imposes us with the senses to use as functional representations of objects in the world and their potential value they inflict on …show more content…
If we were to presume that everything that Descartes has asserted up to this point (a non-deceiving God exists, the senses do not show the true nature or essence of objects, and when we do not have clear and distinct perception, we err) is true, then I believe that Descartes’ argument begins as a worthy one. The senses seem to help us govern our way through the world. We can tell what is damaging and harmful the majority of the time when we use our senses. However, there are a few exceptions that I feel undermine his argument. For example, poison ivy looks incredibly similar, if not identical, to any normal ivy. Descartes is an occasionalist and believes that everything is caused by God (Descartes, pg.48) and that He gave us the senses to help preserve our bodies, so then why do our senses perceive poison ivy as looking like any normal harmless ivy? This is deceitful. If God granted me the senses to help determine what is beneficial and detrimental to my body, shouldn’t poison ivy look or smell vastly different from normal ivy? Or, to take it one step further, if God is not a deceiver, why does poison ivy even exist in the first place? Another example is the berries that are found on holly plants. These berries look like any normal red berry, however, they are poisonous to humans. Furthermore, most birds love these berries and eat them quite often; while doing no harm to the birds. If God is