Click here for the full Meditations
Essay on Descartes’ Meditations Joe Greathouse
The goal of this essay is to review several compelling ideas elicited by Descartes with regards to rational skepticism using a language as distinct as possible. In order to rebuild these fundamental concepts in only five pages, I beg the reader to accept any method (however pre-emptive it may be applied) to arrive at logical conclusions as effective, and question only the validity in those assumptions instead.
An object which I perceive is not this object at all, but only a symbol which represents this object, and to prove this statement will be no trifle thing. The method of doubt requires this to be true, since if I were able to understand an object perfectly, there would be no such thing as doubt. Allow me to share an example: As a very young boy I visited temple square downtown with my parents and many times seen the statue of the Angel Moroni balance on top of the temple. I could observe it from the streets below to be the size of a man and made from gold. Later in life I had the opportunity to dine at the Rooftop restaurant, which was on the top floor of a building right next to the temple, and imagine my surprise when I looked closer at the angel and understood it to be several times the size of a man and made from concrete!
Because I know that an object which at first appears to me in this way is not truly the object but an illusion by my senses, and in fact a different object altogether, I can’t deny the usefulness of any such method that would allow me to know the true object from the illusion. The object I physically sense, the statue, is a symbol which represents what I believe about this statue, my consummated understanding of the object, but since I know that my understanding can change, I can never remove all doubt that it may be only a symbol representing a real object. Such symbols constitute what I believe to be mental objects, or objects known only by the mind, as well: the mind, attitude, justice, these are again objects which I cannot truly experience, but only the symbols which represent my understanding of those objects.
So it would appear that I have no knowledge available thus far of anything that’s not merely a symbol that could at any moment appear different, save one: that as I think I am often in error. This truth is understood so clearly and easily by the mind that all further thought as to the opposite, the notion that I cannot be in error, seems repulsive. After careful pondering I must conclude that there can be no more fitting rule applied to thought except it’s subjectivity to error. It would also appear that the rational path on which we tread ends with the knowledge here, otherwise delving into the impossibility that I should doubt my decision today to buckle my seatbelt, or pay taxes, or any number of actions regarding these imperfect symbols of understanding. This will not be the case however, since I am only curious in knowing where such logical pathways would lead, and to understand better this imperfection of thought, since I can’t deem rational any knowledge which causes me to ignore all other knowledge which conflicts to it, the mere occurrence of the mind absorbing conflicting knowledge with absolute ease by definition can’t be rational. Being subject to dreaming, I often find myself in such predicaments where I’m unable to notice whether I am awake or not, I may sense objects in many number of ways, all of which may affirm me to knowing that these things are indeed there in front of me, but after waking up, I am just as quickly affirmed that these objects were imagined, and that the room I now find myself in is not imagined, but in fact it seems more real than any dream. It occurs to me then, that while I was dreaming, the object I perceived was the real object only just as much as the object I perceived as I was awake was real. The symbols which represent the objects in the dream are essentially, the same symbols which I observe while awake.
Now say I’m unable to wake up, that I’m now part of a dream, is there any anchor-point which I could use to keep knowing the fallacies of my dream-state? I can immediately imply that I am likely to err in any direction of thought, since I know that whatever I’m able to perceive may be in any case flawed. I can’t trust my perceptions in any case to lead me to the truth, and since I’m inseparable from them I find myself trapped. I shouldn’t expect to know either dream or real world to be the truer, since I already know that what I at first perceive to be real turns out to be false and vice versa, and simply knowing that this is the case I’m hesitant to make judgments concerning anything save one: that I am likely to err.
That I am likely to err, requires me first to be something at all. I’m a thing which exists, which thinks, and sometimes thinks in error. Nothing’s understood easier than that idea which acknowledges I exist since I can question anything else but this, and it happens concurrently that I am a thinking, feeling, emotional thing which exists and has a body is no trifle explanation to be accepted either, that I have a body, implying that something exists separate from the body which it “has” This something, called the “I” being the essence of the body, completely inseparable from it, makes up all of what I believe as true thus far. It would be unwise at this point, to think that I could tell the difference between truth and fallacy, when already I have so affirmed that I’m likely to err. Although I’ve acknowledged my ability to doubt their appearance, still I have yet only ridden the assumption that an objective truth regarding such objects exists, and that these objects do in fact become known as they’re exposed to me. In regards to corporeal knowledge, and those objects which are come known by the senses, these are not easily known to the mind. We know of one thing at least, that I exist, and this knowledge is clear. The degree of clarity in which the mind comprehends these ideas can also be said to be the degree of truth in the object it perceives. Since the mind can know without a doubt only that knowledge which is easily understood, absence of knowledge constitute these objects which are difficult for the mind to understand. A degree of truth apparently exists then, if I know that certain things are innate in me, then others are not. If it weren’t so, then I could be easily convinced of an assortment of deceits and never convinced otherwise that I was incorrect in my thinking. This line of thinking suggests that I would see the statue, and even upon examining it up close, never convince myself beyond that first impression of the statue as a tiny thing. Such behavior of an individual like this would suggest they were quite mad.
Such a degree persists that at the one end of a scale is absolute truth, and at the other end, the absence of truth or pure fallacy. Let’s explore the implications of both. The fact that I err in thought can’t be debated rationally, it seems to me second nature, though I acknowledge I think in error, acknowledging that a degree of truth exists, that certain indubitable objects are known by my mind to be true, I cannot know absolute truth or perfect knowledge, only imperfect knowledge that I believe without a doubt to be true.
That I can know truth, and have this imbedded sense that allows me to know the most basic things as true, that the two sides of a triangle are equal to it’s two right angles, is attributed by Descartes to God. I am a thinking thing, which sometimes thinks in error, and then that God exists, since the same method which arrives that I am a thing which exists must also arrive at the conclusion that I have an author, designer, which is God. This knowledge, according to Descartes, is naturally understood by the mind with ease, and therefore we define as absolute truth. That God exists is one thing, but that deceit exists will take some deal of proof if I can avoid contradicting myself at all by suggesting that God who is all perfect could imprint in me an imperfection like deceit. In this imperfect symbol that represents an object I recognize imperfection, in this same way I recognize my understanding of God as imperfect, every object I see is adequately false although I know that this object known as God must exist for myself to be and for my thought to be flawed. How is it then that God, from which everything attributes it’s design could have imprinted flaw into it’s creation? In god there is no deception, but somehow deception exists, so where could it have come from except from God?
I can imagine that an evil genius employs all his time in deceiving me. That he is somehow able to rule my senses and make me think that what I sense is true, except certain knowledge exists regardless of the many manipulations to my senses: that I am a thing which thinks and sometimes errs, that I have an author which is God who would not deceive me. Is there no anchor-point again which can direct knowledge of truth apart from fallacy? I experience these same absolutes regardless of any deception imagined, but now find myself able to know that a deceiver who is not God exists, this can’t be, since God, who is author of all things cannot have imbedded within them imperfection such as deceit, because in God no deceit is found.
Apparently the idea of absolute perfection, such as that found in God is again, only a symbol which I am unable to understand. I’m perfect in that I’m unable to know absolute perfection and being apt to err, not truly free to know the truth, since I’m able to know only some degree of truth in those beliefs. That I am able to think at all, indicates that I’m a constantly judging and sensing thing, which so consequently judges and believes in error. Were I not programmed to know only a degree of truth I’d only know indifference, and thus the absence of thought would be prevalent, I’d cease to be a thinking thing for sure. This evil genius can force me to believe anything regarding these symbols of actual mental objects, but so long as I am a thinking thing, he cannot convince me otherwise.
Conceivably “I” alone might exist, were it not for the fact that “I” is somehow able to know things which are untruth, long enough to understand them later to be thus so. The established cause for truth arrived through the knowledge that God, or an absolute perfection does exist, still no established cause of such deception exists, or at least if it does, seems less than obvious. I can only attribute this sort of deception as in the case of corporeal knowledge to the body itself, through which all deceptions are applied, whether in dreaming or awake, under the control of an evil genius or God himself, in each case I find myself relying on only that knowledge which I’m absolutely sure of, and although my senses are most usually reliable, I can’t deny that I may at any time be dreaming, or fooled by an evil genius.
Regarding the body and it’s most basic rules of operation: I am able to remove the small portion of a blood vessel near it’s extremity, and the body may adjust positively to the change ie. If the connectivity of the body represented were ABCDEFG and I were to remove the G or the A, the body may continue functioning as if it were always such. However I must be aware not remove the D, since this is required for the body to function. The fact the “I” (or in this example the “D”) exists, therefore relies on the affirmation to the body which belongs it. Thought requires first that the “I” pertain to a body which senses these objects and then that the mind receives these and thus symbolizes this object through experience of it.
So again I am in error, I wished to experience knowledge as known beyond bodily sensation, and now understand within this indubitable sphere of knowledge that I am inseparable from it. I can disregard my former ideas as ridiculous “what-ifs” and return to face the truth as forged and polished by my senses, which is far better understood than those mental objects I can barely conceive of. I leave this essay with no awesome and undisputable idea save one: that I’m quite the expert at making errors in frugal judgments.
* * *