René Descartes’ Meditation on First Philosophy
By Brian Ohl
The famous statement, “I think therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum; Je pense, donc je suis), rings loud and clear as a statement by the great thinker and father of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes. In this essay, I will give a brief overview of Descartes’ life and works. I will then analyze and discuss in depth, one of his most important works, the Meditations on First Philosophy. Lastly, I will discuss the significance of Descartes’ works upon modern philosophy and science.
To begin, in order to understand Descartes’ life and works, it is important to note that he was born in an age of great change and upheaval. The scientific revolution was in full swing and changing the long held beliefs about the nature of our world and the universe. Copernicus, for example, discovered that the earth rotated around the sun, rather than as formerly thought, to be stationary, while the sun traveled around it. In addition, Galileo verified Copernicus’ observations, inciting the wrath of the Church. The scientific revolution marked a major shift away from the highly religious views of the middle ages. So, as is portrayed in the trial of Galileo by the Church, there was a great amount of tension between the new science and the traditional views of the Church.
In the midst of this new era, Descartes was born on March 31, 1596, in a small town in Touraine called La Haye (now called La Haye-Descartes or simply Descartes). At the age of ten, his father sent him to a Jesuit school where he received a classical education. In 1614, he began to study law at Poitiers and in 1616 received his baccalaureate and licentiate degrees in law. Soon after in 1618, Descartes joined the army of Prince Maurice of Nassau as an unpaid volunteer, but never saw combat. However, he was able to see Europe and it was during this time that something of life changing importance happened.
In November of 1619, while on a tour of duty in Germany, Descartes had a revelation. As he was sitting in a tent one evening and meditating on the disunity and uncertainty of his knowledge, he suddenly saw the method for putting all the sciences and all knowledge on a firm footing. This marked the beginning of his life-long task to establish a new and stable basis for all knowledge. Shortly after this revelation, Descartes left military service.
Possibly due to the fact that he felt overwhelmed by the task he set out to accomplish, Descartes during the 1620s pursued the good life through gambling, travel, and dueling.[i] In 1628, however, a focused Descartes left France for Holland in order to avoid the distractions and work diligently on his task. He would live there for the next twenty years.
During the 1630s, Descartes wrote his Rules for the Direction of the Mind and The World or Treatise on Light. He suppressed the latter work due to the trial of Galileo in Rome. In 1637, Descartes published a Discourse on the Method for Conducting One’s Reason Rightly and for searching for Truth in the Sciences. In order to clarify the Discourse, he wrote a follow up piece entitled Meditations on First Philosophy, which he completed in the spring of 1640 and published in the summer of 1641.
Both Catholic and Protestant Aristotelians highly criticized and berated the Meditations on First Philosophy and they viewed Descartes as an atheist and libertine.[ii] Descartes hoped that his philosophy would replace that of Aristotle and wrote in 1644, a work entitled Principles of Philosophy to this end. Finally, in his last important work, Passions of the Soul, he discussed such topics as the nature of emotion, the role of the will in controlling emotions, and the relationship of the soul to the body.
Shortly thereafter, in 1649, Queen Christina of Sweden asked Descartes to be her court philosopher and he accepted. Remarking on the climate in Sweden, Descartes is to have said, “It seems to me that men’s thoughts freeze here during winter, just as does the water.” [iii] He died in the spring of 1650, after catching pneumonia. Within this framework of Descartes’ life, his Meditations on First Philosophy will be more clearly understood.
The Meditations on First Philosophy consists of six parts (meditations). In my discussion of this work, I will analyze each meditation separately. The order and progression of his meditations follows the method that is supposed to complete his mission (which as I already stated, is to provide a strong foundation for all the sciences and all knowledge and discover the truth).
“Meditation One: Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called into Doubt,” nicely begins his method. Descartes begins this meditation by stating that there are many false opinions that he had held to be true in his youth, but are now clearly false. Earlier I stated how Galileo had verified Copernicus’ observations and thus proved that the sun is the center of the universe. This new knowledge shocked Descartes, for he had been certain, as everyone else of the time had been, that the earth was the center of the universe. So, Descartes sets out in this meditation to give reasons why we can “doubt all things, especially material things, so long, that is, as, of course, we have no other foundations for the sciences than the ones we have had up until now.” [iv] How can we doubt all things?
The reasons he gives are twofold. First, Descartes argues that we are often deceived by our senses and thus, we cannot know for certain that what we perceive is really true. For example, things far away seem small, but when you are near those things, they seem large. Still, you might argue, our senses surely do not deceive us all the time. Descartes states that while it does seem so clear that he is sitting here next to the fire, and wearing his winter dressing gown, it is possible that he is dreaming it all. He states that there are “no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep.” [v]
Secondly, he argues that even things such as arithmetic and geometry, which seem so certain, might also be mistaken. He states, “since I judge that others sometimes make mistakes in matters that they believe they know most perfectly, may I not, in like fashion, be deceived every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square…?” [vi] In support of this view, he supposes that there is not a supremely good God, but rather an evil genius that deceives us. He states, “I will regard the heavens, the air, the earth, colors, shapes, sounds, and all external things as nothing but the bedeviling hoaxes of my dreams, with which he lays snares for my credulity.” [vii] What is the purpose of doubting all things that can be called into doubt? As Bowman Clarke points out, “It turns out in Descartes’ actual application of the method that it is not truth that Descartes apparently seeks and perhaps not even certainty, as many have suggested, but indubitability.” [viii] In meditation one, he seeks to doubt all that he can possibly doubt, so that in meditation two, he can find that which is indubitable.
The title of Meditation Two, “Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That It Is Better Known Than the Body,” clearly articulates the purpose of the meditation. In this meditation, Descartes discovers that which cannot be doubted, and thus lays the foundation that he was searching for. As stated in the first meditation, Descartes argues that he cannot be certain if he has a body or senses, for an evil genius could be deceiving him. However, he states that,
There is no doubt that I exist, if he is deceiving me. And let him do his best at deception, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I shall think that I am something. Thus, after everything has been most carefully weighed, it must finally be established that this pronouncement “I am, I exist” is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind.[ix]
From this pronouncement, Descartes then concludes that thought exists and thus, not even the evil genius can separate it from him. Furthermore, he declares he exists as long as he is thinking and thus if he were to stop thinking, then he would cease to exist. So, he concludes, that he is “therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing; that is, a mind, or intellect, or understanding.” [x]
What is a thinking thing? Descartes answers, that it is that which doubts, denies, affirms, refuses, wills, imagines, and senses. As Clarke nicely points out, Descartes’ conception of himself as purely a thinking thing (modern mind) is quite a break from the Christian medieval conception of a soul. Clarke states, “What we have here is the medieval Aristotelian mind with the lower functions of the soul amputated, and it has now become a substance, something that does not need anything else in order to exist. The mind is quite distinct from the body and, apart from God, it exists in its own right quite independently of the body.” [xi] This is a major development for the modern philosophy and sets the foundation that Descartes was looking for.
Another important aspect of meditation two is Descartes’ wax analogy. Descartes takes a piece of wax and describes its qualities such as its smell and taste of honey, its size, coldness, and its hardness. Then, he puts the wax near the fire and it melts, changes color, becomes liquid-like, and warm. He asks the question of whether the same wax remains. Surely, he argues that it does, but then asks how do we determine that the same substance exists. He states that the “perception of the wax is neither a seeing, nor a touching, nor an imagining,” but “rather it is an inspection on the part of the mind alone.” [xii] While Descartes argues that he grasped, solely with his judgment, what he had thought he had seen with his eyes, he does not deny that the senses may be involved in his perception of the wax. [xiii] Rather, “Vision and touch…may activate the understanding and provide cues for the intuition of the mind.” [xiv] The role of reason in Descartes method is essential.
Before continuing, it is important to note that there is a serious problem with Descartes method of doubting in order to find a self-evident truth. David Hume, in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, argues that the Cartesian doubt, even if it “were ever possible to be attained by any human creature (as it plainly is not) would be entirely incurable; and no reasoning could ever bring us to a state of assurance and conviction upon any subject.[xv] Even if you could attain the self-evident truth of “I think, I exist,” it would not be possible to know anything else. This view is known as solipsism, namely, that the only thing that exists is your own consciousness, because there is no adequate bridge from the subjective mind to the external world. To be fair to Descartes, we will lay aside these objections and proceed to discuss his third meditation.
In the Third Meditation, entitled, “Concerning God, That He Exists,” Descartes attempts to erase all of his doubt by proving the existence of God. He argues that if there is an evil genius deceiving him, then he will only be certain of one thing, namely that he exists. So, he sets out to prove that a truly perfect God exists.
In order to prove the existence of God, Descartes argues that the cause of his ideas must be at least as perfect as his ideas. He states,
Now it is indeed evident by the light of nature that there must be at least as much [reality] in the efficient and total cause as there is in the effect of that same cause…hence it follows that something cannot come out of nothing, and also that what is perfect (that is, what contains in itself more reality) cannot come into being from what is less perfect. [xvi]
While he argues that it is possible for ideas of such things as corporeal (physical or material) things to have originated within himself, it is not possible for the idea of God to have originated within himself. For, he states that “it appears I could have borrowed some of these [ideas of corporeal things] from the idea of myself; namely, substance, duration, number, and whatever else there may be of this type.” [xvii] However, the idea of God could not have originated within himself.
Descartes argues that he has an idea of God as infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, all good, and the creator of everything that exists. He argues that he could not have gotten the idea from himself, for he is finite and thus to have an idea of infinite, there would have to be a cause that is more perfect in reality than the idea. So, Descartes states, “I clearly understand that there is more reality in an infinite substance than there is in a finite one.” [xviii] So, he concludes that God necessarily exists.
Hume believes there is a flaw in this proof of God’s existence. Once again, Hume attacks that which is so clear and distinct to Descartes. In contrast to Descartes, Hume (who is an empiricist and atheist in contrast to Descartes who is a rationalist and theist) argues that we create the idea of God through adding and subtracting from the ideas we receive from the impressions or feelings.[xix] So, Hume posits that God does not necessarily exist because we create the idea of God from our impressions or feelings, and thus the idea of him is not innate in us.
In contrast to Hume, Descartes believes that the idea of God is innate in us. He states that “like the mark of a craftsman impressed upon his work” God, “should have endowed me with this idea.” [xx] He further argues that God created man in his image and likeness and if God did not exist, it would be impossible to have the idea of God in us. However, if God did create us, why do we err in many of our judgments?
In Meditation Four, entitled “Concerning the True and the False,” Descartes attempts to show how we can make mistakes even though God (due to his perfect nature) cannot deceive us. He states that his power of willing and power of understanding taken individually are not the cause of his errors (for God made them in such a way as to not be deceiving). Rather, it is when they are both together that there is a problem. He states, “Since the will extends further than the intellect, I do not contain the will within the same boundaries; rather, I also extend it to things I do not understand. Because the will is indifferent in regard to such matters, it easily turns away from the true and good; and in this way I am deceived and I sin.” [xxi]
Further, Descartes states that because he is finite (and not infinitely powerful and intelligent like God) he is limited. He argues that God made humans in the best possible way and humans are an essential part of the perfect universe. He states, “But I cannot therefore deny that it may somehow be a greater perfection in the universe as a whole that some of its parts are not immune to error, while others are, that if all of them were exactly alike. And I have no right to complain that the part God has wished me to play is not the principle and most perfect one of all.” [xxii]
Importantly though, Descartes argues that we can avoid making errors and thus achieve our greatest potential by restraining the will. He states that, “for as long as I restrain my will when I make judgments, so that it extends only to those matters that the intellect clearly and distinctly discloses to it, it plainly cannot happen that I err.” [xxiii] That is where man’s greatest perfection lies. In meditation five, Descartes uses this method of restraining the will to only judge what he clearly and distinctly perceives.
In Meditation Five, “Concerning the Essence of Material Things, and Again Concerning God, That He Exists,” Descartes gives another proof for the existence of God and by doing so, attempts to prove that everything depends upon God. To begin, Descartes argues that there are certain truths that are irrefutable such as the fact that a triangle has three sides and its three angles are equal to two right angles. A triangle by definition (our idea of a triangle) is a three-sided figure. So, it is impossible for a triangle to exist with more or less than three sides. Likewise, our idea of God is an entity that is perfect, all knowing, all powerful, and good. As such, it is impossible for a perfect entity to be non-existent, for that would imply imperfection. He states, “From the fact that I cannot think of God except as existing, it follows that existence is inseparable from God, and that for this reason he really exists.” [xxiv] This argument is called the ontological argument and it has its roots in Christian philosophers such as St. Anselm.
The ontological argument is a strong argument for the existence of God, for you can know it through pure reason. As Frederick Broadie states, “The question of whether God exists or not is not a question you can decide, on Descartes’ view, as you happen to see fit; it is decided for you by the very nature of your knowledge of God.” [xxv] Everyone has this knowledge of God, for the idea of Him is innate in us.
Descartes continues in the fifth meditation by arguing that everything is dependent upon God. He states, “But once I perceived that there is a God, and also understood at the same time that everything else depends upon him, and that he is not a deceiver, I then concluded that everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive is necessarily true.” [xxvi] Further, Descartes argues that the certainty of our knowledge of every science “depends exclusively upon the knowledge of the true God,” because prior to becoming aware of God, Descartes states that he was uncertain about anything other than the fact that he existed. In the final meditation, Descartes uses this foundation of knowledge to discover truths about the external world.
In Meditation Six, “Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and the Real Distinction between Mind and Body,” Descartes attempts to bring an end to the doubting that led him to search for truth. He argues that, “there clearly is in me a passive faculty of sensing, that is, a faculty of receiving and knowing the ideas of sensible things; but I could not use it unless there also existed, either in me or in something else, a certain active faculty of producing or bringing about these ideas.” [xxvii] He further argues that he (a thinking thing) does not produce the ideas, for it “clearly presupposes no act of understanding, and these ideas are produced without my cooperation and often against my will.” [xxviii] He concludes that something corporeal (physical or material) must be causing these ideas and that something is a body, which is distinct from the mind. He argues as before, that since God is perfect and thus could not be a deceiver, then it must be so that material things exist.
In addition, Descartes states that his “nature” (which is given to humans by God) teaches him that he has a body, which senses things such as heat and pain (which is caused by an external physical thing). Further, his nature teaches him that there is a connection between him (his mind) and his body. In order to illustrate this, he uses the analogy of a sailor to a ship. He argues that the mind is not related to the body in the way that the sailor is related to the ship, for when we are injured we sense the pain, while the sailor only sees by sight if the ship is damaged. [xxix] Therefore, there is a union between mind and body.
It is important to note however, that there are major differences between the mind and body. The mind is indivisible, unextended, and thinking, while the body is divisible, extended, and unthinking. Further, as Descartes proved in meditation two, his essence is a thinking thing, which can exist without a body. By showing that that mind is indivisible and able to exist without the body, Descartes attempts to show the immortality of the soul. Even when the body dies, the soul continues to exist. [xxx]
It may be objected that Descartes, even though he recognizes that he thinks, cannot claim that his mind is purely spiritual (non-material), for it could be material (such as a brain). [xxxi] Empiricists after Descartes (who remember is a rationalist) argue that there is only physical substance and no proof for a spiritual substance. They claim that it is sophistry and illusion to argue for such an unextended and thinking thing.
Descartes concludes the sixth meditation by looking at one of the chief reasons for his doubting in meditation one, namely, that there are no definitive signs to tell if you are awake or dreaming. He argues that “I now notice that there is a considerable difference between these two; dreams are never joined by the memory with all the other actions of life, as is the case with those actions that occur when one is awake.” [xxxii] In a dream, things are disconnected and random, while when you are awake, things are connected and related. Most importantly though, since God is perfect, Descartes can be sure that he is not being deceived.
Descartes is, as I stated before, the founder of modern philosophy. He more than any other figure in the 17th century, “marks the intellectual transition from the Middle Ages to the modern world.” [xxxiii] While his metaphysics and theology clearly articulate the views of medieval thought, his approach or method to philosophy ushered in a new era. His deductive, mathematical rationalism (starting from self-evident truths in order to learn scientific principles), combined with Francis Bacon’s inductive experimentalism, form the modern scientific method, “which began to crystallize in the late 17th century and which relies on both of these intellectual approaches.” [xxxiv]
In the Meditations on First Philosophy specifically, Descartes argued for the existence of two substances, namely, mind and body. The mind is unextended and thinking, while the body is extended and unthinking. Problematically however, he fails to show how they causally interact. As Clarke notes, “most of modern philosophy and a good deal of contemporary philosophy can be viewed as attempts to handle this problem bequeathed by Descartes.” [xxxv]
In conclusion, Descartes not only revolutionized philosophy, but he inspired an intellectual revival, namely, the enlightenment. His genius and skill as a philosopher place him among the great thinkers of the Western world. The Meditations on First Philosophy is clearly representative of his genius and skill and gives us essential insights into our nature and world. Just as Descartes’ conception of the mind (soul) is distinct from the body and thus does not die with the body, but is immortal, Descartes’ philosophy, even though much of it is flawed and has been proved to be in error, will remain to inspire and influence philosophers for generations to come.
[i] Rene Descartes. Meditations
on First Philosophy. Translated by Donald A. Cress.
(Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Company, 1993), vii.
[ii] Descartes, viii.
[iii] Descartes, ix.
[iv] Descartes, 8.
[vi] Descartes, 15.
[vii] Descartes, 16-17.
[viii]
Bowman L. Clarke.
“Rene Descartes.” In Great Thinkers Of The Western World.
(New
York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992), 196.
[ix] Descartes, 18.
[xiii] Leon Pearl. Descartes.
(Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1977), 103.
[xiv] Pearl, 104.
[xv] David Hume. An Enquiry
Concerning Human Understanding. (Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing
Company, 1993), 103.
[xvi] Descartes, 28.
[xvii] Descartes, 30.
[xviii] Descartes, 31.
[xx] Descartes, 34.
[xxi] Descartes, 39.
[xxiii] Descartes, 41-42.
[xxiv] Descartes, 44.
[xxv] Frederick Broadie. An
Approach To Descartes’ ‘Meditations.’ (London: The
Athlone
Press, 1970), 152.
[xxvi] Descartes, 46.
[xxvii] Descartes, 52.
[xxx] John, Cottingham.
“Cartesian Dualism: theology, metaphysics, and science.” In The
Cambridge
Companion To Descartes. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 252.
[xxxi] Broadie, 195.
[xxxiv]John P. Mckay, et al., A
History Of World Societies. (New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company,
2000) 569.
[xxxv] Clarke, 199.
Bibliography
Broadie, Frederick. An Approach To Descartes’ ‘Meditations.’ London: The Athlone
Press, 1970.
Clarke, Bowman L. “Rene Descartes.” In Great Thinkers Of The Western World. New
York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992.
Cottingham, John. “Cartesian Dualism: theology, metaphysics,
and science.” In The
Cambridge Companion To Descartes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992.
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by Donald A. Cress.
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.
Eaton, Ralph M., ed. Descartes Selections. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955.
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Company, 1993.
McKay, John P., et al., A History Of World Societies. New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Pearl, Leon. Descartes. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1977.