Hobbes and One Some and All

In Shapter XVIII Rights of the Sovereignty and how monarchy becomes the best government for anyone. Hobbes defends this pretty much straight out says this and gives alot of explanation in his statement. He says that everyone appreciates and prefers monarchy we just dont recognize or say it. We prefer this because it prevents a war of all against all. Another thing to consider is his significant connection to preservation saying that it is the most important thing to any human life. Saying the Sovereign furthur secures preservation, but in class we started to talk about how that ends when the king comes to kill you. I found a problem with this because Hobbes cannot simply say that this "contract" of preservation between the monarch and the people he rules ends so suddenly. I would say that there is a even larger loss of preservation when living under a monarchy. Hobbes takes this on to simply in my opinion, and just as plainly puts government into 3 forms. One, Some and All. I found this borderline offensive because of how important these governments can be and put them into three simple categories.

Non-Heredity of A Monarch

Something that has been weighing heavily on my mind lately is the fact that in Chapter 19 of the Leviathan, Hobbes discusses the fact that the line of succession in his ideal monarchy is not what modern life (or even historically) defines it as. He states that “the word heir does not of itself imply the children, or nearest kindred of a man, but whomsoever a man shall any way declare he would have to succeed him in his estate.”

It is from this that I begin to question the way that things have worked historically, and perhaps why so often there are issues within societies that work differently than this is because incompetent rulers are being put into power purely due to biological heredity or the flaws within democracy.

If we look at things retrospectively, does Hobbes have a legitimate point?

Hobbes and the Absolute Sovereign

 When Hobbes speaks about a sovereign that rules within a commonwealth he speaks of one who has absolute power. This is not surprising due to the fact that in a Monarchy the king/queen would have the supreme power. However, my thought process shifted and I wondered if there could be a Monarch if there is not first a commonwealth. The answer is no, and thus this denotes some dependence on the existence of the commonwealth to maintain power as the sum of all of its parts. Essentially, due to this binding of the Monarch’s power to the commonwealth it would seem that they are not absolute in the sense that all of their decisions should conform to what is best for the commonwealth. Does the Monarch get his/her power from the commonwealth? If yes would it not seem that they are servant to it? For to have a Monarch without a commonwealth would seem ridiculous. Unless the Monarch is so much the commonwealth that it is impossible for him/her to act against him/herself? It is obvious that the Monarch is bound to the commonwealth and that this is the main benefit of Monarchy as a form of government. Hobbes points out that "the resolutions of a monarch are subject to no other inconstancy than that of human nature" (120) and that, "A monarch cannot disagree with himself out of envy or interest..." (121). These quotes show that the advantages to having a Monarch were bound to the idea that they would act in the decisive and true interest of the commonwealth from which they drew their power. However, if one is bound are they really absolute?

Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Hobbes

Hobbes, being a staunch materialist, defines liberty in the beginning of Chapter XXI as "the absence of opposition (by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion)..." He also states that fear and liberty are consistent, as are necessity and liberty. Just because one acts out of fear or necessity does not mean their liberty has been impeded. If a man were required by the state to hand over all he owned to the government or else be hanged, he is nevertheless free to choose either course of action. He fears death, but he is at liberty to resist the order and be killed for it. The same goes for necessity. If one absolutely needs to drink water or they will die of dehydration, they still have complete liberty to drink or not to. If they were held down and water poured down their throat, they would no longer be free. As long as no external forces act upon the body, liberty is retained. This becomes more interesting when you look at internal forces that may not be consistent with the will. Involuntary movement disorders that cause one to move against their will might seem to us to be impeding liberty, but Hobbes would see this as a deficiency in strength and, not interfering with will or liberty. Illnesses due to their internal nature, do not interfere with freedom or liberty, only with "strength and wit". 

The implications all of this has in Hobbes' envisioned society are monumental. It allows for totalitarianism on the basis that is does not interfere with the freedom of mankind, granted the government doesn't physically impede the motion of anybody. It offers a complete justification of the institution of slavery, again as long as iron chains or restraints are not used. So are slaves really free? Is it simply fear and apparent necessity that keeps them in bondage? If so, Hobbes would agree their liberty is still intact.

Hobbes and Succession

Hobbes’ discussion on the different forms of government is fascinating. When noting how the monarchy is superior, Hobbes makes many interesting points. To me, one of the more fascinating points is when he discusses succession within the monarchy. Hobbes writes, “By express words or testament, when it is declared by him in his lifetime, viva voce [orally] or by writing, as the first emperors of Rome declared who should be their heirs. For the word heir does not of itself imply the children, or nearest kindred of a man, but whomsoever a man shall any way declare he would have to succeed him in his estate” (125). While I do not believe that this interpretation was often applied in historical monarchies, I do think that this point helps Hobbes’ argument. His concept of the monarchy, including this idea of succession, does make this form of government seem more logical. In his monarchy, Kings would ideally be chosen for their merit, and not simply because they are related to former kings.

Sovereignty and Honour

While I enjoyed many of the points Hobbes lays out in Chapters XVIII-XXI and XXIX there were certainly elements that I found problematic. Chief among my concerns is the lack of a focus on the dignity of the individual human person.  Granted, within the framework established by Hobbes, a focus on individuality isn't beneficial, but it still seems troubling that the only right a citizen has is to his or her physical body (and even then, it's complex).  Hobbes makes the point in Of the Rights of Sovereigns by Institution that "...the honour of the sovereign ought to be greater than that of any or all the subjects.  For the sovereignty is the fountain of honor" (117).  It is probably a reflection of my societal and political socialization, but it seems to me that the sovereign derives his or her power form the individuals who compose the commonwealth and not the other way around.

Back to our Nature

            I can somewhat follow Hobbes’ theory on the fundamental nature of man. I agree with the fact that man is naturally brutal and equal and it is that equality that makes us think we deserve everything someone else has. And because we are equal, everything is ours, including other’s stuff. And I agree with his conclusion from that: we need government to keep that peace and keep one another from killing each other and taking anything we want.

            What confuses is me is his relationship between master and servant. I view that covenant as a smaller version of government. One submits to another for his own well-being and the well-being of society. But when a servant submits, all that is his becomes his master; in the words of Hobbes, “[The master] may exact the use thereof…of his [servant’s] goods, of his labour, of his servants, and of his children, as often as he shall think fit.” So once in this covenant, the relationship reverts back to the brutal and equal human nature, but is now only one sided. All that is his is mine, but mine is not his. Does Hobbes think that this fundamental nature is acceptable as long as it is ensuring the peace and well-being of the whole? He seems to show that we need government to prevent this, but his system of covenant seems to go back to this nature and make it worse in some degrees.

Hobbes Equality of Man

Focussing mostly on chapter XIII: Hobbes talks about his idea of equality. He talks about how everyones bodies are the same and man is equal therefore there will always be conflict. "Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger n body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable..."(Hobbes, 74). We talked briefly in class about how this works. Just a reminder if someone is the same as you, finds the sme things necessary and strives the same way you do there will be a conflict of interest and a dispute over the resources desired by both parties. Where as if we were different we could recognize who holds the most power out of all of us and who "deserves" the sought after item. This can be seen now through the lense of gender how men have grown up with expectation of being the man and the provider for his future family. How we have to be the strong figure for others to be insired by. While women are raised to be gentle and fair. Seen more as a caretaker role instead of a leader role. While I don't believe this is as true now I do see the relation.

To Infinity and Beyond

We read in chapter 3, paragraph 12 of the Leviathan Hobbes' view on the human conception of infinite. He states, "Whatsoever we imagine is finite. Therefore there is no idea or conception of anything we call infinite... When we say anything in infinite, we signify only that we are not able to conceive the ends and bounds of the thing named." Man can not imagine the infinite because he can not have any sense of it, and everything that he imagines must come from his senses. All this being said, despite our inability to comprehend an infinite thing, we are certainly capable of understanding that infinity does indeed exist. The best way to prove that we can understand the infinite is through mathematics. It is evident that if we take the largest number that we can conceive, or X, we can always add 1 to X and have a larger number still. This proves that we can understand that infinity exists, but it does not allow us to imagine or comprehend the infinite.

Hobbes and Natural Law

In reading chapter xiii, Of the Natural Condition of Mankind  I was struck by Hobbes’ assertion that “The desires and other passions of man are in themselves no sin. No more are the actions that proceed from those passions till they know a law that forbids them” (77).  To me this sounds like a moral relativism that doesn’t follow the logical and practical form of his other statements. In paragraph 23 of chapter vi Hobbes suggests that a desire is either to be blamed or “allowed” based on the actions by which it is attained.  This is a perspective that I can understand better than the one he lays out in xiii because it provides for the idea that an action can be wrong according to natural law and not simply state statutes. The suggestion that a thing is only wrong if there is a law to declare it so seems exceedingly ridiculous and calls into question the very idea of morality in a way that is unproductive.  After all, there are certainly laws in place which are in themselves unjust. One considers Martin Luther King, Jr.’s appeal to natural law in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail whereby he invokes an objective moral standard in order to provide for racial equality in the face of legal injustice.  

Hobbes on Human Nature

  Hobbes believes human nature to be self-centered and that the natural state of man is one of war. This occurs due to the notion that humans are selfish in the most basic pursuit, that of self preservation . In a situation were there is no central power (government, commonwealth), Hobbes believes that anything goes because anything has the potential to satisfy that basic, and selfish human need of self preservation. Hobbes goes on to state that, "the notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice." (78) This point shows how within the natural state of war between all men there is no standard for right and wrong. This is so because individuals would be determining this all on their own. One person may kill to protect himself, and another may steal to keep himself fed but these actions without a central power would not be considered either right or wrong. For human desire and that basic instinct can only be moral when held within the view and standard of a collective power (commonwealth). Otherwise self preservation is the law of the land with absolutely no standard for justice or injustice. I agree with this assessment of mankind in that when there are no authorities to set a standard for justice, people act in what they deem to be their own best interests, and they will do this regardless of the implications. This is visible in instances of civil unrest caused by natural disasters.

Free Will (or lack thereof) and its Social Implications

Hobbes suggests that will is an illusion we have constructed by mistaking the power of our appetites and desires.  He claims that any decision one makes can be explained by a desire we failed to control or introduce, therefore we are not in control of our actions.

Although there are some arguments that may circumvent Hobbes' proclamation, I'm going to assume that it is correct for the sake of this argument.  I am going to establish a rough argument that one's lack of free will, and the means by which one forms his ego, causes the individual to be mainly the composite parts of the individual's around him.

If we are guided by our desires, then we are at the will of whatever causes such desires to take place.  This may be instinct (we desire to eat, find shelter, etc. for the sake of survival), or our experiences and observations of the behavior of others (that person has something that would be of benefit to me, so I now want it).   This later desire was not realized until observing the behavior or actions of others, and therefore it is not intrinsic.  The desires that come to be by extrinsic forces can be understood as the influence of our society.

(Here it is important to note that society was formed by mankind in correlation with the desires of the individual (original instincts), but as the customs of the past have been imposed upon future generations, it has been shaped into something much different - often times in opposition with the desires of the individual.)

It is also important for the sake of this argument to understand how our egos are formed.  We form our egos and our understanding of ourselves by the manner in which we act and the thoughts that led to such actions.  These actions and thoughts compile to form an idea of the self; however, if these actions are created by an extrinsic force, as explained above, then what we define as ourselves is actually the work of something extrinsic to the self - mainly other people and their actions.  Therefore we are mainly the composite of desires instilled by other people then we are an independent individual.

Hobbes, Language, and Reason

For me, the most interesting parts of Leviathan so far have been Hobbes’ thoughts on language. As an English major and an avid reader and writer for my entire life, any discussion on verbal or written communication intrigues me. Most notably, in Chapter V, he states, “Children therefore are not endued with reason at all till they have attained the use of speech, but are called reasonable creatures for the possibility apparent of having the use of reason in time to come” (26). I agree that speech is connected to reason in an intricate and important relationship. Speech is how humans express their reason to other humans. However, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that reason is impossible without speech. For example, very intelligent people sometimes have uncontrollable disabilities that prohibit them from expressing themselves in words. Their reason is still present internally; it is just not present to other people. Similarly, I think that children possess reason that is different than adults’, but it is still valid and useful regarding contributions to society. The only difference is that it may express itself differently. So, I agree with Hobbes to a point in this statement, but I think his stance in this passage is a little extreme. 

Hobbes and War

Hobbes’ discussion on how humanity interacts is fascinating. When I read his opinion that all men are equal, and that war is caused because of this equality, I was immediately drawn in by his thoughts on the matter. Hobbes continues on this subject by declaring, “To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent: that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues” (78). The fact that Hobbes believes that there are no rules in war is fascinating to me. It is hard to imagine what wars would be like without morals holding men back from committing atrocities. It makes me wonder why Hobbes does not believe that there is a moral conscious that prevents most men from committing certain crimes against humanity. Yes, there have been instances in the past where mankind has forgone moral restrictions (The Jewish Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking). However, there are comparably more examples of armies and legions that have fought according to certain rules of battle. I would like to learn more about what Hobbes thinks on this specific subject.

Yours is Mine and You are Mine

            In the Leviathan, Hobbes is extremely thorough with defining exactly what he means so the reader does no misinterpret his work. The first ten or so chapters read much like a dictionary and it is hard to disagree with what he says because he is simply giving definitions that all seem fairly logical. Once he breaks into religion and politics, he says many things that cause much contention between readers and Hobbes.

            One of the things that did not sit well with me was “every man has a Right to everything; even to one anothers body.” I can understand his point that man is fundamentally evil; Socrates and Glaucon in the Republic seem to show that this makes sense. But what I don’t agree with or understand is how that gives us a right another’s body. I understand his logic for material possessions: we are equal, therefore we think we deserve equally what others have, which means we have a “right” to take anything we want. But how does that apply to other humans? They are in the same position as us, and if I understand Hobbes right, are just bodies controlled by desires. How can another body led by desires possess another body led by desires?

            To me, this seems like it allows rape and murder to be something that is okay because it is our right to do what we want with another’s body. This section raises a lot of questions in mind if this is applied at a large scale.

Descartes and His Perfect God

If God is infinite and all powerful then nothing is impossible for him. Descartes however writes that deception is malicious and God is incapable of anything malicious. Immediately he has placed a limit on God by declaring him incapable of something. If God is all powerful then it would seem that he is completely capable of making us think that he is incapable of deception. Descartes writes that he is incomplete and dependent and that his existence each and every moment depends entirely on God. He then goes on to suggest that his will is separate from this dependence as it is not determined by an external force. Descartes refers to his faculties of imagination and memory as "feeble and limited" but then claims to understand these same faculties to be "boundless" in God. It does not follow that something perfect should generate anything less than. Either God is perfect and us along with our existence is perfect despite what we may believe about it or God is not perfect. It is not enough to simply say that God is perfect, we are from Him and he the reason that He did not give us the capacity to understand anything more than we do is just his will. We may agree with Descartes that simply by thinking we can know that we exist, but thinking that we know we exist because we are thinking does not speak to the validity of the content of our thought. Like most "proofs" for the existence of God, Descartes lead up to the moment of truth so to speak is thought provoking, ultimately however, what still remains is a giant question mark.

Mind and Body

Throughout the Mediations, Descartes argues a type of dualism where the mind and the body are separate entities. It seems for Descartes that one is not their body but solely their mind. He also seems to argue that it is possible to reject one's body and use the mind alone.

However, a few pages into the sixth Meditation, he takes on a point that raises several questions for me. Descartes begins to concede that some of "I" is in the body when discussing sensations. He writes that "clearly these sensations of thirst, hunger, pain, and so on are nothing but certain confused modes of thinking arising from the union and, as it were, the commingling of the mind with the body" (81). It is this "commingling" that gives rise to questions for me.

If it is possible to mix the mind and the body, can Descartes truly argue a dualistic split?

Descartes' Meditations, God and self

Descartes argues that God must exist because the idea of God is natural, and incredibly prevalent.  He also states that one can wade through different layers that exist within the mind, and essentially reevaluate and reset one's mentality.  He argues that these layers lead us to faulty conclusions about the world and the truth that may exist within it.

This is where I begin to question the legitimacy of Descartes' argument for the existence of God.  Our mentalities cannot, at least in my opinion, be entirely reset.  Through experience we have established fundamental modes of thought.  For example, we have been taught the english language - this language perpetuates certain methods of interpreting our surroundings and experiences.  In order to reset our mentality entirely we would have to forget the English language as it is a potentially faulty lens, but no amount of meditation or contemplation of the self can make this happen.

This makes me question what other fundamental modes of thought exist within us.  I find it very possible that God, or rather the concept of God, is derived from the innate fear of living a meaningless life.  This fear quite possibly arouse from our ability to be self aware, and to question ourselves.  If we cannot reset this fear then we are inclined believe in a God.

God (Truth) and the Church

   There was one general question that resonated with me, and that was why in the world did Descartes write the Meditations? It obviously was not just for personal reasons, or simply for self assessment. If this had been the case then this work would have likely not been published. I came to the conclusion that Descartes published the Meditations as a way to introduce to the world a new method for conducting scientific research/reasoning. But he faced two large obstacles. And these forces influenced how he was to go about introducing his method.

    The first was the church of his time which, to put it lightly, was not a fan of science and even felt threatened by its exploration of the natural world. And second, Descartes had to prove, before he put forth his method, that there was a reason to have a method in the first place. In other words, Descartes had to prove that there was a solid truth to search for. He found his way around these obstacles through his use of his method to "prove" the existence of God.

    With God he found his salvation, the way around these two issues that plagued his time. Descartes proved that he "was certain that I am a thinking" and that he was unable to exist in the sense that he couldn't doubt his existence, for to do so was a thought and thus existence in and of itself. However, while Descartes could prove he existed he had to prove that something other then him existed also. This was necessary because if he could not prove this his logic would falter and his method could be seen as pointless as it searched for truth where none potentially existed. However, through much deliberation and thought Descartes determined that because he had an impression of God, an idea of an all powerful deity, that this idea must have come from somewhere. It couldn't be him, since he was imperfect and was thus unable to grasp the perfection of which he was thinking. Thus, the perfection that so impressed his mind must exist for it would have to exist in order for Descartes to have a thoughtful impression of it. From here Descartes was able to follow his logic through and deduce that since he existed as a thinking thing, and that God existed as a perfect all good being, then the things which Descartes saw clearly could be held as true if seen with reason. This was due to the fact that God was not a deceiver and gave Descartes the faculty of understanding which when used properly could enable him to arrive at truth. "But once I perceived there was a God, and I also understood at the same time that everything else depends on him, and that he is not a deceiver, I then concluded that everything I clearly and distinctly perceive is necessarily true." (p131/70)

    This argument solved the two issues Descartes faced and showed why he presented the Meditations in the manner that he did. First, his proof for God is rather compelling and showed the church of his time that his scientific method could live in harmony with religious belief, and even in some cases aid in its understanding. In addition, by proving that God exists Descartes had the ability to ascertain that the physical world, created by a benevolent God, was able to be examined in a truthful and right manner. Thus Descartes showed how science and religion could coexist and also established a reason to pursuing scientific truth by attempting to prove that there is an honest truth to be discovered should we precede with good faith and reason.

Pass the Bong already, René

      Well, although Descartes does not explicitly make the case that is on the verge of exposition here (and perhaps he never meant to), the Meditations evokes avid curiosity regarding the notion that the cosmos may very well have self-organized in a mathematically perfect manner, such that all the chemical compositions and measurements pertaining to the configuration, distance and direction from which celestial bodies situated themselves in relation to all other celestial bodies, came to be in accordance to a mathematically exact design. However, once intelligent organisms take the stage, despite having followed said mathematically, physio-mechanically and biochemically perfect ordering, the factor of free will interferes with the prevailing processes underpinning a mathematically perfect spatiotemporal, ecological, and geophysical framework of creation.
     Namely, the human ability to exercise free will necessarily thwarts the mathematically perfect processes from continuing as usual, because the ability to choose as you please and exact your personal will upon life allows for alterations in the fabric of the world, even though mathematically perfect processes will still occur, but in different contexts and directions, in turn causing effects that deviate from the path that may have been unfazed by free will. With the hopes of complete elaboration, even if people arrive at the point in which they are capable of exercising free will on account of mathematical functions propelling the mind into such a state, what ultimately matters is that while in such a condition, they are equipped with the conscious apparatus to critically analyze a variety of options they can choose from in accordance to how they willfully think, rather than instinctively react to environmental happenings and circumstances. The manifestations of consequences resulting from free will invariably changes the flow of mathematically reducible behavior. 
    This mathematical activity, in addition to logical constructions that model nature, would therefore constitute all that is constant in any universe--besides a subatomic membrane that takes on a variety of biological manifestations--meaning that no matter what the chemical, biological and physio-mechanical laws may be, they will follow specific mathematical and logical forms, although such configurations could theoretically change or be proven incorrect to greater or lesser degrees. Either way, no matter how physical and tangible/salient manifestations of being are presented via matter and an array of fundamental physical forces, all that happens and exists outside of free will can arguably be understood and seamlessly modeled through mathematical patterns and symbolic logical constructions.

Aristotle, Augustine, & Anselm

Overall I was surprised while reading Descartes' Meditations, not only because of its heavy (and in my opinion loosely proved) emphasis on the existence of God, but also because the arguments that he sets out for the reader on the dilemma of error are almost identical to those of St. Augustine and St. Anselm.  Descartes' assertion that error is the result of a "privation or lack" is a direct reference to the works of earlier Philosophers, but even so, he fails to follow through with his arguments in the satisfying way that the others do. Perhaps my uneasiness is the result of an appreciation for the obvious agenda of saints like Augustine and Anselm, and conversely a suspicion as to why a mathematician would be so effusive about God.

I expected Descartes to break from the Ancients dramatically in terms of his Meditations, which in many ways he seems to do, but to me his explanation of God can make the most sense, not when compared to the work of the saints, but compared to Aristotle. Because the word God conjures pre-conceived images and bias, I find it more helpful to view Descartes' framework in terms of Aristotle's idea of thought-thinking-itself. In this model Descartes' absolute certainty of the existence of God and suspicion of the corporeal may be resolved much more neatly. 

Descartes' Constant Image of God

In Meditation 3 of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, he proposes that he received the idea of God by its being innate in him. It didn’t come from his senses, which is good since the senses deceive us, but it isn’t from his own creation either, “for I plainly can neither subtract anything from it nor add anything to it. Thus, the only option remaining is that this idea is innate in me” (121). Descartes says that he cannot change or modify the image of God that he has whatsoever, and this is his reasoning for believing that God has to exist in order to instill that idea in him.

However, people distort the idea of God all the time. For Christians who believe in God, some of them emphasize the loving, nurturing, fatherly figure of God, while others accentuate the judge role of God who is focused on justice and vengeance. In the Christian tradition, scripture can support both of these images. People who believe in God clearly can add and subtract parts of him that they like and don’t like. So, I think that this aspect of Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is a bit unsound. 

Descartes, Science, and God

I found it difficult to enjoy Descartes simply because I cannot enjoy indulging in probability regarding being "certain", and most things that he states and that he defends the objections with are in a state of probability. "It is quiet possible that this is a certain thing!".... come on.

The way that he connected the ability to know with the existence of god was rather grand and quiet ingenious, especially in a time when it seemed like such a suggestion was necessary for any further progress to be made under the power of church and state.

I did enjoy the experiment with wax and its results. I find that we interact with the essence of things, like the wax before and after is still the wax because of the idea of the wax we have in mind. I also feel that we interact equally with those ideas in transitional states. As they transition from their original physical state, the transition also happens to the idea, which changes the idea but still follows from the original idea. So in a way, I find essences to be as transitional as the form they coincide with in the "physical realm."

Descartes' linchpin

In his second meditation, Descartes makes the claim that if you were to melt and reshape or otherwise significantly alter a piece of wax, one could still know it to be wax, because they know the essence of wax. He claims, ". . . I do not grasp what this wax is through the imagination [the senses]; rather, I perceive it through the mind alone. (Tanner 31)" Here the senses are capable of playing tricks on the mind, due to their lack of perfection, therefore they are to be disregarded in determining what an object is in itself. However, Descartes mentions, if one were to "observe men crossing the square (Tanner 32)", one solely uses judgement to determine that they are men, and that senses just reveal to us qualities of particular men. While I do not disagree with any of these ideas, I believe that Descartes stops just shy of the point he appears to be trying to make. Beginning with the example of the wax–which may not benefit from being called "wax", and might better be represented by the symbol "X"– if one were to take everything that made up what we know as X and completely rearrange it so that it no longer had any of the original qualities of X and instead only had qualities that make Y, we would certainly no longer have X, but Y. However, if we were to take away all but one quality of X, we would not have Y, and X would remain, significantly altered, but still X. While the senses are known to be deceptive, it is not deception to say that X can not exist, therefore neither can our understanding of X, without a single quality of X. It is through the natural sciences that we can come to know a single quality of X, and it is off of this premise that we base our understanding.

How then does it follow that we know a man crossing the square is indeed a man and not something else entirely? Descartes argues we know this by judgement, a faculty only of the mind, but I'm inclined to add on to this idea. If we have seen men cross the square before, anything that closely resembles what we experienced at that first crossing will appear to us as men crossing the square. Every subsequent man crossing the square will only be so because of the first experience we had of a man crossing the square. However that first experience of a man crossing the square had to have made itself known to us without any previous experience, requiring the use of the senses coupled with contemplation, for we can not know man without knowing his qualities just as we can not have X without any of the qualities of X.

Descartes and Assumptions

Something that I really admired about Descartes' Meditations was how he started by eliminating any certainty of existence, and then worked forward to determine what does actually exist. However, I am still unconvinced that Descartes has proven the existence of God. I do think that he has proven that he believes in the existence of God, but I am still wondering whether it is possible to imagine an infinite concept while still being a finite individual. Personally, I find his argument flawed in that he takes for granted this idea that having a concept of the infinite implies that the infinite exists. In Meditation Four, he attempts to strengthen his argument by saying, “I acknowledge that it is impossible for God ever to deceive me, for trickery or deception are always indicative of some imperfection. And although the ability to deceive seems to be an indication of cleverness or power, the will to deceive undoubtedly attests to maliciousness or weakness. Accordingly, deception is incompatible with God” (122-123). Clearly, Descartes is working under the assumption that God does not posses the will to deceive because he is neither malicious nor weak. While I can agree that God is not weak, the maliciousness of God is up for consideration. Simply put, when writers are working with an unstated and unsupported assumption, I would like for the assumption to be indisputable enough to dispel any need for additional support.

I think therefore God Is

            Throughout Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes restates that he must throw off what he does not perfectly understand and keep only that what he fully understands. As he states those two things that he certainly understands are that he himself is a thinking thing and that God exists. He provides many reasons why God exists, but his main point is that since he can think of God. God must have placed that “nature” in him, so God must exist. Descartes does a great job of razing the world around him to get to the conclusion “I think therefore I am,” but to reach “I think of God therefore God is” to me seems like a stretch. Because we can think of an infinite god does not require that the god necessarily exist. He assumes that since we have thought of the infinite, the infinite must exist. He grew up in a society, much like we do, where the idea and concept of God exist. At some point in time, someone may have thought of an infinite god being simply by negating the finite. And then over time the idea may have been accepted and then we reach the point where Descartes believes that God is infinite.

            Some of his arguments are better than his first one, like to be perfect, it must necessarily exist, but I believe he should have started with stronger one, rather than a variation of the proof of his existence.