**********************************
The Western Canon Mailing List
Moderator: Paul John Barnette Jr.
Activation Date: March 8, 1997
Current Date:  June 14, 1997
Current Membership: 66
**********************************


Some comments on Part IV of the Discourses (continued)

(1) In the fourth paragraph of Part IV Descartes gives his
proof for the existence of God. It is too long a passage to
quote here, so I will try to paraphrase what he says to the
best of my ability.

I now know that I am something which thinks. When I examine
my thoughts I find one that is very different from all the rest,
and this is the idea of God. There appears to be no 
contradiction in assuming that almost all of my ideas could
be caused by myself because they are not more perfect that
myself, but the idea of God is very different. Since this
is the idea of a being obviously more perfect than myself, 
it could not have been cause by me. It must have been implanted
in me by this more perfect being, therefore, God must
exist.

Is this a valid argument? Does Descartes succeed in proving 
that God exists, and if not, what exactly is wrong with this
argument? 

(2) In the next paragraph Descartes gives what has come to be 
called the ontological argument for the existence of God. Unlike
the argument above, it did not originate with Descartes. It was
first proposed by a Saint Anselm, in the 12th century. Again, it
is too long to quote here, so I will paraphrase.

When I think of a triangle, I cannot help but to see that one of
the properties of a triangle is for its three angles to sum to
180 degrees, which is also the sum of two right angles. It is
very obvious to me that this property follows directly from the
nature of triangles, it is part of its essence in other words. The
property of existence, however, does not follow directly from the
idea of the triangle. There is absolutely nothing in the idea of
a triangle that requires that it should also exist. This is true
for the vast majority of ideas, except for the idea of God. The
idea of God is one of a most perfect being, and as such part of
its essence must be existence, otherwise it would not be completely
perfect because it would lack a positive property, which is a
contradiction. This being the case, God must therefore exist.

Is this a valid argument, and if not what exactly is wrong with
it? Is there any difference between this argument and the one
above, and if so what exactly are the differences?

(3) In paragraph seven of Part IV, Descartes commits what many 
consider to be a very serious mistake. It is here that Descartes
appears to be arguing in a circle. Let me try to point out why this
is so.

Descartes states that the fact that God exists is the only assurance
he has that his criterion of truth is correct. In other words, his
doctrine of clear and distinct ideas requires the existence of God
before it can be assumed to be valid. If this be the case, then it
appears that Descartes is giving a circular argument by employing
his criterion of truth in order to prove that God exists in the
first place. In other words, Descartes proves that God exists by using
a criterion of truth whose validity requires that God exist in the first
place, thus he is arguing in a circle.

Please read paragraphs four and seven very carefully and see for
yourself whether or not Descartes is actually saying this. Can you
see any way for Descartes to get himself out of this difficulty?


Please post any comments that you may have!!!!

Since so far there have be no postings on Descartes this month
except my own, I have decided not to do any more postings until
the traffic on the list picks up a bit. I hope everyone has a good
summer!

Paul John Barnette Jr.


*********************************************************
The Western Canon Mailing List
pbarnett@geocities.com
The Western Canon WWW Site
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6681/index.html
*********************************************************