Philosophy: Self & World
Professor Alison MacIntyre
3.13.95
First Problem Set1
- by Janet Si-Ming Lee
"Meditations" is Guilty of Circularity (Support or Oppose Argument):
At the beginning of
Meditation III, Descartes builds an argument with the goal of
affirming the existence of God and that God is not a deceiver.
Ultimately, he seeks to eventually prove that everything that he sees
clearly and distinctly is true because if God exists and is not a
deceiver, then God would not deceive him of something that seems so
obviously clear to him is false.
Descartes categorizes ideas as being innate (fundamentals), acquired
from the external world (through the senses), or produced by the
imagination. Descartes is most concerned with the truth of the reality
of the ideas that he derives from the external world since he doubts
the reliability of senses to not deceive him. His premises to prove
the existence of God are:
1) A formal reality is greater than a presentational reality because it
is more perfect.
2) A presentational reality cannot arise from nothing or of less
perfection or formal reality.
3) God is by definition of infinite formal reality.
4) God is the absence of limits.
5) My understanding of infinite existence although I have a
finite existence shows that God must exist since I cannot
conceive of a presentational reality greater than myself.
6) A perfect being like God has all the knowledge of the reality,
therefore, learns no new knowlege and has no potential
to be reached.
7) I am still gaining new knowledge, therefore, I am not God;
that I can conceive of a perfect being when I am not God shows that
there is a perfect being, God who conveyed that image of an infinite
formal reality.
8) My image of God is not acquired because I have not understood
him through my senses.
9) My idea of God is not a product of my imagination because
this idea of a supreme being with infinite capabilites
cannot be subtracted nor added to.
10) My idea of God is innate.
11) I clearly and distinctly grasp the idea of God which has more
presentational reality than any other idea.
12) Whatever I clearly and distinctly grasp is true.
Conclusion: God exists. Descartes tries to make a distinction
between attending to a proposition that seems clear and distinct and
remembering a proposition that seemed to be clearly and distinctly
perceived in order to account for the circularity in his argument that
God exists. Descartes attempts to make an appeal that if one is able to
attend to proposition and remember a propositon that supports that
very proposition simultaneously than a circularity problem can be
resolved. This is because, he says, if one is attending to an argument
that is the foundation for a truth one perceives very clearly
intellectually, one cannot doubt that truth at that time. For example,
he says, if one keeps in mind the argument that shows that God exists,
one can prove that what one perceives (e.g. God exists) clearly and
distinctly is true because if God exists, He would not deceive one of something one perceives clearly. This resolves the circularity issue, he
says, because one cannot doubt that God exists while one's attending to
this argument that proves God exists.
However, Descartes is ineffective in his objection to the
circularity claim because basically, he continues to argue in a circle
when he uses his conclusion that God exists and is not a deceiver as
a premise in proving that everything he sees clearly and distinctly
is true. In other words, how can Descartes rely on subjective certainty
about whether he perceives something clearly and distinctly to prove
something is true if he is simultaneously trying to prove that his
judgements are sound? If Descartes can go into an argument with the
hypothesis that an evil demon is deceiving him of what he perceives as
clearly and distinctly, how can one be sure that Descartes is
in any shape to judge that the existence of God is sound if he may
still be blinded to the things that he thinks he sees clearly and
distinctly. Descartes is unable to resolve his circularity issue
based on the evil demon hypothesis of deception, therefore, he is
unable to successfully prove that 2 + 3 = 5 because he is unable to
show that what he thinks he grasps clearly and distinctly is true.
Discussion on Pascal's "The Wager":
Pascal argues in The Wager that the choice to believe in God's
existence is founded on prudential reasons rather than evidential
reasons. Normally, one chooses to adopt a belief that one feels can
be supported adequately by evidence and intellectual reasoning, or in
other words, that is based on evidential reasoning that show how one's
belief makes more sense than its contrary idea. However, one's decision
to believe in God, he says, is based on prudential reasons: the hope
for an infinity of happiness. He makes a pursuasive argument that the
rational person should make a decision to believe in God based on the
possible outcomes of either believing or not and then ultimately, going with
the outcome with the highest utility: believing in God's existence.
His premises are if God exists and one believes that He exists, then
one stands to gain eternal life, an infinity of happiness. He
continues to say that even if God does not exist and one believes that
God exists, one still reaps a small finite positive reward from living
the Christian life that is, one will be "faithful, honest, humble,
grateful, generous." If one stands to lose anything at all from leading
the Christian life when God does not exist, it is merely the loss of
glory and secular luxuries which he argues are "poisonous pleasures"
anyway.
In this argument, Pascal only presents the advantages of believing
whether or not God exists. He implies the assumptions that if God does
exist and one does not believe,then one will suffer eternal damnation,
an infinity of suffering. On the other hand, if God does not exist
and one does not believe, then one only loses the small, finite
positive reward of living the Christian life and one has staked
nothing. Pascal also assumes that one would agree with him that
leading a Christian life is synonymous with leading a good life.
However, there are various interpretations on what a "good life" means
to different people. A good life can be described as either being
materialistically or secularly pleasurable or abiding to moral
principles. Obviously, when Pascal describes the "good life", he means
the moral, God-fearing life. People who judge a "good life" to be a
life of secular pleasures would disagree with Pascal that the moral life
which may include celibacy, persecutions, and martyrdom is a
"good life". Therefore, they would disagree with Pascal that the
positive Christian values like unselfishness outweighs the disadvantages
of believing in God when God does not exist.
Pascal tries to convince one that the decision to believe in God should
be based on the rational consideration of the pros and cons of
religion. However, his assumption that people always feel good
when they do good deeds presents a paradox in his appeal to our
self-interest when considering whether to be Christians. Indeed,
he uses this assumption that people are innately unselfish to
show how believing in God even if God does not exist is still
an advantage over not believing because one reaps the Christian
spirit of generosity, humility, and honesty which makes one a
happier person. In Pascal's appeal to Christianity through self-interest,
it can be paradoxically implied that even if one is innately selfish,
one can still feel good about being morally good because one can
take comfort in the belief that one will be rewarded with immortality
for one's good deeds. Whether or not God exists is inconsequential
when one is dead. However, if God does not exist and one does
not believe He does exist and one is selfish, one would not agree
with Pascal's implication that the small, negative value in not
leading the Christian life of generosity and humiliy is worse
than a non-Christian life of luxury. Pascal also assumes that
when you believe in God's existence, you are both religious in
heart and in actions which is another paradox to his self-interest
appeal to Christianity. The problem with this assumption is that
these two qualities do not always coincide. I find Pascal's argument
compelling in that I feel that most people do decide to believe
in God based on prudential reasons that he described-- if not
to escape hell, then merely to gain some comfort in believing
that there is a chance to escape death whether or not God exists.
I do believe it is psychologically possible to adopt a belief
such as the belief in God's existence on prudential reasons.
Reconstruction of Hume's Argument:
In Hume's argument in Section IV of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
Hume makes a startling claim that all one's conclusions founded on one's
experiences and observations are not derived from reasoning nor any
process of the understanding. What justifies one's conclusions that
similar causes has similar effects, he asks, and what justifies one's
conviction that the the course of nature will not change--a conviction
that is the basis for all one's conclusions that future events will
resemble past events? Nothing, he says ultimately. He lays his
argument as such:
Premise 1: Human reasoning can be only classified as either
relations of ideas or matters of fact.
Premise 2: Relations of Ideas are innately or demonstratively
certain, therefore, anything contrary to it would be
inconceivable by its very definition.
Premise 3: Matters of fact cannot be proven by evidential
reasoning because its contrary is still conceivable.
Premise 4: All the "evidence" that supports matters of fact are
based on the relationship between cause and effect.
Premise 5: Every effect is a distinct event from its cause.
Premise 6: From a mere observation of a cause (without prior
knowledge of its effect) one cannot deduce the effect nor the necessary
connexion between the cause and the effect.
Premise 7: Cause and effect relationships are not founded by
reasoning a priori (innate).
Premise 8: One's conclusions on all cause and
effect relationships are based on one's past experiences (observations).
Premise 9: All laws of nature and understanding of the relationships
in nature and in the world are based on one's past experiences
(observations).
Premise10: For similar causes, one expects similar effects
(based on the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature:
the future will resemble the past).
Premise 11: One can conceive of the contrary to the Principle
of the Uniformity of Nature, therefore, the Principle
of the Uniformity of Nature is not a relations of ideas.
Premise 12: The Principle of the Uniformity of Nature cannot
be proven by a matters of fact argument because
that would involve circularity.
Premise 13: If the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature cannot
be proven by either matters of fact argument
or relations of ideas argument, then the PUN cannot be proven by any
reasoning.
Premise 14: One's conclusions that similar causes have similar effects are
neither demonstrative nor intuitive.
Conclusion: The conclusions drawn from experiences are not
founded by reasoning or any process of the understanding.
In essence, Hume explains that all one's conclusions about the similar
causes having similar effects are not based on reasoning
because they are derived from the Principle of Uniformity of Nature
that assumes that the course of nature will never change. This, he
says, is because the Principle of Uniformity of Nature itself cannot
be proven by either of the two types of reasoning: matters of fact
and the relations of ideas arguments. Hume argues that the Principle of
the Uniformity of Nature cannot be reasoned through with the matters
of fact argument because that would involve circularity and essentially,
proves nothing. Hume says this is because matters of fact arguments
are themselves founded on cause and effect relations which is entirely
derived from experiences. Experiences, he points out, are only relevant to
conclusions about the future if we make the inductive generalization
that the future will resemble the past and that similar causes or
events will have similar consequences. Therefore, he shows that the
conclusion that the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature must be used
as a premise in the matter of fact argument that tries to prove that
this principle is based on reason.
