Meditations on First Philosophy

Descartes responds to objections to his earlier work Discourse on Method. The first objection is his failure to include other potential natures of the soul other than a thing that thinks. He responds, “I knew nothing clearly as belonging to my essence, excepting that I was a thing that thinks, or a thing that has in itself the faculty of thinking” (3). Descartes’s philosophy in Discourse on Method is focused on his thought and perception. The second objection is that, simply because one may possess the idea of a being more perfect than them, it does not follow that the being exists. Descartes responds by presenting different definitions of the concept “idea.” An idea can be taken in the material sense, in which case it is comprehended in an act of understanding and therefore cannot be more perfect than the thinker. An idea can also be taken objectively, or as that which is represented by this act, in which case our idea of God is certainly more perfect than we are.

Descartes then gives a synopsis of the following six meditations. In the first meditation, Descartes sets forth reasons for why we should doubt all things, especially material things. In the second meditation, the mind realizes that it is impossible that it does not exist. This conclusion allows him to distinguish between things that pertain to the mind and things that pertain to the body. An argument for the distinction between mind and body is presented. In the third meditation, he presents the causal argument in favor of God’s existence. The fourth meditation differentiates between truth and falsity and investigates what it means to commit an error. In the fifth mediation, he posits a link between mathematics and God. Clear and distinct knowledge of geometry depends on the knowledge of God. Lastly, in the sixth meditation, he distinguishes the act of understanding from the act of imagining. Errors of the senses are addressed along with how to avoid them. Descartes concludes with an explanation of how one may logically deduce the existence of material things.

Descartes subjects his existing beliefs to relentless questioning. He states, “It is now some years since I detected how many were the false beliefs that I had from my earliest youth admitted as true, and how doubtful was everything I had since constructed on this basis” (6). Descartes begins with a critique of knowledge acquired through the senses as our senses deceive us in our perception of objects. Yet, Descartes concedes, there are times when our senses present indubitable truths. He provides himself as an example; “there is the fact that I am here, seated by the fire, attired in a dressing gown, having this paper in my hands and other similar matters” (7). The only time such a conclusion could be doubted is if he were mad. Descartes ceases to explore the possible role madness plays in deceiving the subject, believing it to be a too extravagant argument. To be more realistic, Descartes turns to dreams.

Descartes states that in his dreams he believes in things that are even less probable than those believed by insane people while awake. He writes, “How often has it happened to me that in the night I dreamt that I found myself in this particular place, that I was dressed and seated near the fire, whilst in reality I was lying undressed in bed!” (7). Struggling to distinguish between sleep and wakefulness, Descartes progresses under the assumption that he is currently asleep to see what arises from such a thought experiment. Descartes argues that sciences, such as mathematics, which form conclusions about simple entities, remain constant in both wakefulness and dreams. Yet, there may be an all-powerful God who is a deceiver and who tricks us every time we add together three and two or count the sides of a square. He writes, “I shall then suppose, not that God is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me” (8). All particulars of existence can now be doubted as possible illusions. Descartes writes, “I shall consider myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, nor any senses, yet falsely believing myself to possess all these things; I shall remain obstinately attached to this idea” (8).

Descartes ponders if it is not equally possible that he has put these deceptions into his own mind. He asks, if persuaded that all things in the world cease to exist, would he not be persuaded that he does not exist? To be able to persuade or be persuaded, Descartes argues, presupposes existence.

It follows then that even if God is a deceiver, God can never “cause me to be nothing so long as I think I am something” (9). Thus, when one proclaims, “I am, I exist,” it is necessarily true (9). Existence is confirmed, but what kind of existence? Descartes investigates what he associates with his being. He begins to differentiate the body from the soul, asserting that the soul nourishes and mobilizes the body internally. The point of intersection between body and mind is the thinking “I.” The thinking “I” cannot be separated from its faculties. Descartes concludes that, while the senses deceive, what can be known is that “I see,” “I hear,” I touch,” and so on.

To further explain the relationship between the “I” and the senses, Descartes presents his wax experiment. He examines a piece of wax with particular attributes. Upon melting the wax, he asks, “Does this wax remain after this change?” (11). Despite the wax melting, changing color, and having a different odor, our mind understands continuity and can identify this wax as the original object. Therefore, the mind perceives the wax as much as the senses, as the senses are misled by the change in appearance.

Descartes attempts to block his senses so that he may come to know himself and his mind more directly. If he is a thing that thinks, then must he not know what is requisite for thought? For something to be true, it must be clearly and distinctly perceived.

To remove doubt concerning God as a deceiver or as non-existent, we must inquire into God and His nature. He writes, “Now it is manifest by the natural light that there must at least be as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in its effect. For, pray, whence can the effect derive its reality, if not from its cause?” (15). Descartes continues his argument, stating that if the objective reality of his ideas is of such a nature that he realizes it is not in him, then something external to him must be the cause. While we could be the cause of our ideas of finite substances, because we are finite substances, we cannot be the cause of the idea of an infinite substance. That which is an infinite substance must be the cause of our thinking of it. Thus, if God did not exist, we could have no conception of Him.

Descartes then answers a series of questions. First, he asks that since our knowledge can seemingly increase to infinity then might not this infinity reside in us as well? He responds by attributing our potential for growth as the source of our lacking. He then ponders if he would still exist if the being he possesses an idea of did not exist. He concludes that nothing can come from nothing, and thus something which is at least, but most likely greater, than us must exist to create us. Lastly, he asks how is it that we keep our identity over time? He argues that every perceived change in one’s identity does not constitute a rebirth. We are created once by God.