Meditation Three Descartes Argument Analysis

By the end of Meditation Three Descartes has established the reliability of his clear and distinct criterion of knowledge, which has lead him to conclude that he exists as an essentially thinking thing and that, from the idea he has of an infinite and perfect being, God necessarily exists. Descartes also eliminates the worry from Meditation One about being systematically deceived, as such deceit would be indicative of some failing or deficiency rather than the exercise of some power. The idea of God would have to contain a contradiction for him to act in this way. This realization, however, generates more troubling questions since humans do regularly judge erroneously, even without the meddling of a malicious, deceptive being (99). Given God 's perfection and benevolence, attributing human error …show more content…
But, conversely, how could we be blameworthy for a faulty faculty of judgement given to us by God? Surely God could have made us insusceptible to error, and it seems that a world without error would be preferable and more perfect. This paper will first explicate Descartes ' explanation of how errors occur and then proceed to consider his argument that humans are to be held accountable, despite God having to ability to prevent error. It will be contended that the success of this argument depends on a strong conceptual link between existence and goodness, as well as a clarification of Descartes ' concurrentism.

Descartes identifies contention between the fact that God, being no deceiver, would not have created him with a faculty of judgement that goes astray when properly utilized and the fact that errors are still made. He distinguishes between the “real