The Effect Of René Descartes Meditations On First Philosophy

Philosophers have used two main methods as a means of proving this; either a priori or a posteriori. A priori reasoning or knowledge can be achieved without any experience or knowledge from the outside world. The ideas are said to be innate or we already have a notion of knowledge when we are born. This is the method René Descartes uses in his arguments in his work Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes uses a priori to its strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion a priori reasoning has its weaknesses in its strengths and therefore cannot convince the modern day reader of a plausible approach to proving Gods existence. The other method, a posteriori reasoning, gives us a backbone for a priori reasoning and both play off one another. A posteriori …show more content…
The logical format is illustrated when Descartes refers to the ideas of innateness and certain ideas being defined as clear and distinct perceptions. Using this organization he portrays his argument by stating that God is innate just as mathematics is innate. (Descartes, 59A) Using Descartes’ assumption that God has planted everything in our mind, and just as we know that 2+2 is equal to 4 and 4 exists because of 2+2, and this idea is instinctive, he then justifies God in the same innate sense. This is what Descartes would call a necessary truth; in fact, the laws of geometry and arithmetic are all necessary truths. These necessary truths incur no falsity and are clear and distinct perceptions to us. God’s existence is therefore necessary because of a clear and distinct idea of a supreme being. Not only do we acknowledge God as existent, but unlike other innate ideas, the idea of God cannot have come from our own (human) thoughts. Rather, it was planted into our minds by God himself. The logicality of Descartes’ proof of God is easy to follow and it is easy for one to understand an innate idea, but within these strengths lay the weaknesses of a priori …show more content…
Descartes uses the premise to prove the proposition and then uses the proposition to prove the premise. So Descartes states that you use your clear and distinct ideas to prove God, whilst also requiring God (the proposition here) to prove your clear and distinct ideas which is a circular argument; the Cartesian Circle. Descartes makes many inferences and assumptions in his proof of Gods existence and this causes the holes in his argument. Not only does the circular fashion cause holes, but one’s own perception of the world may interfere with this idea of innateness. If God is innate and God has implanted himself in our innateness, then how can one explain an