Rene Descartes Meditations Critique

Rene Descartes Meditations CritiqueThe flow of this base will primarily be a series of inquiries on Rene Descartes methodic discredit as a philosophical method which has become the foundation of his metaphysics. In other words, this paper will point out several inconsistencies in Rene Descartes deductive process starting from its roots up to the conclusions he arrived at.In the Rene Descartes Meditations of First Philosophy, he expounded the epistemological problems surrounding the scholastic tradition. He furthers his agate line that hu musical composition knowledge is imprecateing too much on traditional doctrines, which he said is based on un substantiaten presuppositions. This gave way to the birth of a dilemma between what is certain knowledge and what is unwarranted belief. This headspring tag of Descartes led him to develop a method by which he cease deduce what is true from a single fundamental principle This is Rene Descartes customary Methodic Doubt.He started by s tating that in frame for us to seek for honor, it was necessary, at least in one case in the course of our lives, to interrogative sentence, as far as possible, of all told things. He said that in the course of ones life, many prejudices arouse been accepted as true, that in turn deviate us from versed certain impartiality. He also stated that we ought to consider as suddenly false all that is headful. He then went on to discuss why we should doubt our senses. He stated that it is common knowledge that our sense is non infallible, our senses are subject to error, and thus it would be imprudent to put our desire onto something that deceives us on a regular basis. He further argued that we stopnot unfeignedly acquire certainty on what is real when in fact we nominate the same stimulations whether we are asleep and dreaming, or awake.The next subject of Descartes planetary methodic doubt is mathematical demonstrations. He argued that there was no guarantee active the c ertainty of such mathematical demonstrations because of mans fallibility. He said that there was no way to be sure that we are not deceived by a beau ideal who made it appear to us that things exists but in truth are non-existent. He plane went on to assume that matinee idol does not exist for the sake of argument, in which he replied that a lesser cause of his creation will likewise mean that there will be a greater reason for us to believe that we could be unceasingly be deceived.Finally Descartes concluded that we quite a littlenot doubt our beingness while we ourselves are, in fact, doubting. He stated that we posteriornot suppose that we are not while we doubt because we bednot possibly conceive that what thinks does not exist at the very flash when it thinks. This is how Descartes arrived at the single fundamental principle that he was seeking in order to deduce other forms of truth Cogito, ergo sumAt this point Rene Descartes encountered a problem in his line of th ought. He cannot rely on the truth of his universe when it is based on the self-confidenceworthiness of his logical thinking because his argumentation expertness is also subject to the very method he created the universal methodic doubt. This is when he demonstrated the existence of an interminably better being, who gave man faculties which are trustworthy and capable of discovering truth.His ontological argument about Gods existence is as follows. He stated that we have the creative thinker of God as an infinitely consummate being in our mind. And it is necessary for an infinitely perfect being to exist otherwise it is not an infinitely perfect being. He also tried to prove Gods existence by means of causality. He, once again, began with the premise that we have the idea of an infinitely perfect God, and since the idea represents an infinitely perfect being, we being finite, cannot have been able to produce such an idea using our limited faculties. This idea being beyond o ur limited capacities can only originate from a being that possess infinite perfection.after examining Descartes metaphysics from its roots up to its conclusions, this paper will pose various inquiries regarding the inconsistencies of Rene Descartes method. Rene Descartes began his enquiry by doubting all form of knowledge without exception, he even went further as to deem things with the slightest possibility of doubt as perfectly false. Using Descartes very own method, what makes the idea of an infinitely perfect God true? And if the idea of an infinitely perfect God doubtful how can he deduce, from this doubtful idea, the existence of God?Rene Descartes used the idea of the existence of God as an escape route to his philosophical dead abate regarding the trustworthiness of his argumentation ability, but the idea of an infinitely perfect being is subject to his universal methodic doubt, thus he cannot prove the trustworthiness of his reasoning abilities, not to mention that th e very same doubtful trustworthiness of his reasoning ability was used to prove the existence of God in the offset printing place. In only goes to show that since the very idea of a God is doubtful, every other thing must remain doubtful.The trustworthiness of Rene Descartes reasoning ability was assumed as an effect of the existence of an infinitely perfect being and this infinitely perfect beings perfection is made certain to him by means of his reasoning ability, before he was able to prove the rigorousness of the trustworthiness of his reasoning ability. He assumed the trustworthiness of his reasoning ability in order to prove the existence of God in order to prove the trustworthiness of his reasoning ability, thus he commits a error called begging the question also known as a philippic argument. His line of thought was nullified because a doubtfully valid cleverness can produce only a doubtfully valid argument, and a doubtfully valid argument can only lead to a doubtfully valid conclusion.This series of inconsistencies in Rene Descartes method goes to show that the very moment Rene Descartes decided to adopt a method of universal doubt to deduce a fundamental philosophical principle in which he will deduce other forms of truth, is the same moment that he created an best wall that will r closeer any method of acquiring truth impossible. His actual procedure in all the arguments he presented is that he presupposes the harshness of his reasoning when in fact it is also subject to the methodic doubt that he devised hindering him from accepting the validity of his reasoning before he can prove the existence of an infinitely perfect God. The only possible end for his arguments is to accept a sort of universal scepticism, because no certitude can ever be attained in a system that doubts and eventually deem the foundations of human reason as false. If the very nature of his mind is subject to doubt, not to mention deemed as absolutely false, then all idea s, judgements, and inferences can no longer be trusted. If Descartes mistrusts the simple judgments of 2+3=5 and A square has four sides, how can he trust his faculties in making the far more complicated arguments with which he tries to prove Gods existence and infinite perfection?