Descartes' first meditation

 

The Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) is arguably the most influential work of modern philosophy. It is Descartes' magnum opus in which he finally presents the meditations he talked about in the fourth part of the Discourse on Method. In this book Descartes explains his metaphysical system, proving, by reason alone, the existence of God and of the soul. 

Descartes wrote this book in order to further clarify his metaphysical system, which makes an appearance in his discourse but left some readers with a lot of questions. First of all, the metaphysics presented in his discourse is only a very brief account of Descartes’ metaphysical system and leaves out a lot. Radical doubt and the hypothesis of a deceiving God do not appear in the Discourse on Method. This might be because Descartes was scared that, seeing as the text was very accessible as it was in French, some of its readers might misunderstand and accuse Descartes of atheism. Furthermore, the questions of will and judgement are absent in the discourse as well, most likely because Descartes had more important parts of his metaphysics to discuss. The proof of the existence of bodies and the real distinction between the mind and the body are not discussed either in the discourse. This would not have had its place because there is no methodological doubt in the discourse, and no one with good sense would ever doubt the existence of bodies or question the connection between the mind and the body. 

The meditations also contain a letter of dedication to the dean and the doctors of the faculty of theology in Paris. In this letter Descartes explains that his meditations are necessary to prove, by reason, the existence of God and of the soul. This should be able to prove the existence of God and of the soul to atheists, which theology cannot. Theology cannot prove the existence of God because it always presupposes his existence and arguments circularly. According to theology, one should believe in God because of the teachings of the Scriptures, and one should believe the teachings of the Scriptures because of the existence of God. This is a vicious circle that can not possibly prove the existence of God. The belief in God and in the Scriptures are both rejected by atheists, and therefore, neither of these can prove to him the existence of God. However, if there was a proof of God grounded in reason alone, then no one could ever reasonably doubt his existence ever again. A demonstration grounded in reason alone is the only thing that can persuade an atheist of the existence of God. 

Convincing an atheist of the existence of God should be useful to society and to the atheist. Believing in God should make people act morally. Without this belief, people will quickly observe that during our life it is more profitable to be vicious than it is to be just. Let’s take a simple example: assume I know how to steal 100 euros without getting caught. It is much more profitable to steal 100 euros a couple of times a week than it is to tire myself out working on menial tasks in order to get paid. We can all profit a lot from lying and stealing. This is not true anymore if we postulate an afterlife where we will be greatly rewarded for acting morally. It simply isn’t worth going to hell for a couple of hundred euros. 

Descartes wants to show, in his meditations, how to arrive at the knowledge of the existence of God by reason alone with ease and with certainty. This is supposed to be what makes these meditations, and philosophy in general, useful. This means that the thinking of Descartes has evolved. In the sixth part of the Discourse of Method, the truth that Descartes had found in his speculations was not enough to convince him of their utility or to push him to publish any work; that task was left up to the first knowledge he acquired in physics. This, however, seems to be false! Descartes, in his preface to the reader, states that he has always thought that the question of God and of the soul was so important that he should one day write about it. 

The first meditation

According to the summary Descartes provides for his meditation, “The first meditation introduces reasons why we can have doubts about everything.” This meditation will thus put into place a radical and methodological doubt. This radicality means that Descartes will not only doubt things that we habitually consider doubtful, such as whether a friend has lied or whether your crush will accept your date invitation. Descartes will also doubt things which seem unreasonable to doubt, like the existence of the earth, the existence of physical bodies or even whether 2 and 3 together make 5. So why doubt all these things? As the summary suggests, it is in the first meditation that Descartes explains why he establishes this doubt. 

The first reason given by Descartes is that he has noticed “how many false things he had accepted as true in his childhood”. I think we can all name examples of things we used to hold for true in our childhood which now seem ridiculous. For example, my mother taught me that if I looked at a screen for too long, then my eyes would become squared. From this truth I expertly inferred that I should not look at a screen for too long. While, practically speaking, my mother was very happy that I spent some more time playing outside, when we look at it from the perspective of a search for truth, this poses a problem. Due to our childhood naiveté we have all allowed false propositions to enter our minds as truths, and from those false propositions we can infer other false propositions which we will hold for true. If we want to advance in philosophy as far as possible, we should remove all of these propositions from our thinking. However, this is not so easy. The problem Descartes faces here is that there is no surefire way to tell whether all of these propositions have been removed or not. It can sometimes take us years to understand how ridiculous and childish some of our thinking has been.

Descartes’ solution is to start anew in philosophy and to begin “from the most basic foundations”. These foundations refer to first principles, starting points for thinking. Descartes’ goal is to establish certain and stable starting points. Just as the foundation is a starting point for a house and is essential to its stability, in the same way a principle in philosophy should be the starting point for all knowledge and play an essential role in its stability. Certain knowledge requires a good foundation. If the starting point of my demonstration is false, then the conclusion is false too; however, if the starting point of my demonstration is true, then at least I have a chance of finding a true conclusion. 

In order to start anew, Descartes will doubt everything that can be doubted, and if he finds something which cannot reasonably be doubted, then that knowledge can hopefully be the foundation of all other knowledge. So what can be doubted, and what cannot be?

The senses

A lot of the knowledge we hold to be true comes from our senses. For example, I believe it to be true that the pen lying on my desk as I am writing is blue. This is because my eyes tell me that it is blue. Can this be doubted? Yes! Why? Because our senses can deceive us. Not everything we perceive is automatically true. Think, for example, of optical illusions. Everyone that sees the Müller-Lyer illusion could swear that one line is shorter than the other, even when this is not the case. Our senses do not always tell the truth, so how can I be sure that my senses allow me to acquire any knowledge at all? What assures me that I am not being deceived by my senses all the time? The knowledge that we acquire from our senses is therefore the first knowledge that Descartes doubts, but there is more!

The body

Is it possible to doubt that my body is mine? Is it possible to doubt that I have hands, feet and a head? To this, Descartes objects with the dream argument. When we dream, we believe that we are doing all sorts of things and have all sorts of attributes that are not true. While dreaming we are convinced that we are in our body and that we are doing something with our body. We never doubt while dreaming that the body we have in our dream is not ours. This means that we can doubt having a body if we can doubt that we are awake. This is not very hard. While dreaming, it is impossible to know that we are dreaming, and we are sure that what we see is real. It is therefore possible to doubt that we are awake right now and that we are not merely dreaming. If we assume we are dreaming, we can doubt that we actually have a body.

Arithmetic and geometry

Surely arithmetic and geometry could be saved from all doubt, right? What sets mathematics apart from the body and the senses is that maths does not rely on things to exist in nature. Even if nothing material exists, it seems that we can never doubt that 2 and 3 together make 5. This knowledge holds true even if we are dreaming. To be able to doubt arithmetic and geometry, Descartes imagines that God, which he believes to exist, might have created him in such a way that he is always mistaken. If this is the case, then there is nothing anymore that Descartes cannot doubt except for the existence of God himself. Since God is all-powerful, if he wants Descartes to be mistaken all the time, then Descartes should doubt every single piece of knowledge he thinks he possesses. Descartes could then even be mistaken when it comes to mathematical truths. We might object that this would be contrary to God's goodness, but Descartes argues that it is no more contrary to God’s goodness than if he had made it so that Descartes was mistaken some of the time. This last claim cannot be denied, as no one can be right all of the time. 

The existence of God

The ability to doubt the existence of God is obvious today, but it might have been less obvious at the time of Descartes. Descartes, however, argues that since there are people that deny the existence of God, then certainly it must be possible to doubt his existence. If it was not possible to doubt his existence, then there would be no atheists.

The evil demon

“Therefore, I will suppose that not God, who is the source of truth but some evil demon, who is all-powerful and cunning, has devoted all their energies to deceiving me.” This is the most radical and last formulation of Descartes' doubt in the first meditation. But why go so far to believe in the existence of an evil demon? This is, according to Descartes, to steer his mind as far away as possible from the knowledge he believed to be true. Descartes fears that habit and familiarity will make him relapse, in some sort, into his old beliefs. He fears that he is so accustomed to his beliefs that he will risk believing in them again because they are so probable. The hypothesis of an evil demon is used to counteract this familiarity. 

This doubt is methodological; the point of it is to see if any truth can survive against the hypothesis of an evil demon. Is it possible that my pen is not blue if there is an evil demon deceiving me? Yes. Is it possible that I do not have a body? Yes. Is it possible that 2 and 3 together do not make 5? Yes. Is it possible that there is no God? Yes. And so none of these truths stand the test. The hypothesis of an evil demon is the touchstone that will allow us to know when we have found an indubitable first truth which can serve as a principle to metaphysics.