The Meditations on First Philosophy is Descartes’ most famous work. Though it is usually known as the Meditations, the full title of the work is Meditations on First Philosophy in which the Existence of God and the Distinction of the Soul from the Body are Demonstrated.
The Meditations on First Philosophy or, simply, the Meditations, is prefaced by a letter to the wisest and most distinguished men, the dean and doctors of the Faculty of Theology of the then University of Paris. Descartes’ intention of doing this is obvious. As we may already know, it had been just 8 years since the condemnation of Galileo. As is well known, Descartes allied himself with the basic outlook of Galileo, especially on the argument that the sun is the center of the universe (heliocentrism) instead of the earth (geocentrism).
Because the Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris had been so influential for centuries, Descartes seemed to believe that if he could secure the approval of the Faculty of Theory at the University of Paris, then he may be able to escape Galileo’s fate.
As we can see, the Meditations on First Philosophy gained approval from the Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris; however, after 22 years, the Roman Catholic Church placed it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books). As is well known, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum is a list of books that were once forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church because these books were considered as dangerous to the Catholic faith and morals of the Catholic Church.
Just as the Discourse on the Method, which is Descartes’ first published work, the Meditations on First Philosophy is also composed of 6 parts. In what follows, I will briefly sketch the key concepts of each part.
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation I): On What Can Be Called into Doubt
In the first meditation, Descartes reiterates materials from his previous work titled the Discourse on the Method. For example, in the first meditation, Descartes employs again the concept of “methodic doubt” that he first introduced in the Discourse.
As is well known, the methodic doubt seeks to doubt everything believed to be true in order to determine which beliefs one could be certain as true. The methodic doubt, therefore, necessarily leads to the discovery of truth. How is it possible?
For Descartes, the fact that he is doubting shows the certainty of the existence of a being that doubts. It goes to show that if, for example, I am doubting, then I must be thinking. And if I am thinking, then I must exist. Needless to say, the existence of the thinker necessarily precedes the act of thinking. Therefore, Descartes sets out to prove, using only reason, that some truths are beyond doubt. Indeed, this is the basis of the famous Cartesian phrase “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore, I am”.
However, Descartes admits that he cannot be sure that God is not playing some tricks on him. The idea here is that there might be a powerful demon that tricks him and created some illusions in the physical world to deceive him. This is what we call in Cartesian philosophy the “demon problem”. But because Descartes believes that God is good, he is convinced that God would not deliberately deceive him. Therefore, the I is certain of itself which, as we can see, proves the point that indeed the human mind can attain truth.
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation II): On the Nature of the Human Mind, which is Better Known than the Body
Most of meditation II is devoted to discovering whether there is anything that Descartes can be certain about. It is important to remember that in the first meditation, Descartes talked about things that can be doubted and employed the methodic doubt in discovering the truth. In meditation II, Descartes continues to demonstrate how certainty can be attained.
As already explained, Descartes is convinced that he can be certain that he exists because if he doubts, there must be a thinking mind that does the doubting. From here, Descartes proceeds to addressing the question “What is this ‘I’ that does the thinking?”.
Descartes’ answer is that this mind is purely a thinking thing. In other words, for Descartes, the mind is nothing but a thing that thinks.
Descartes, however, concedes that though what he perceives with his senses may be false, he cannot deny that he is perceiving. Thus, for Descartes, the human mind is capable of both thought and perception. In other words, for Descartes, sensation or perception belongs to the mind. As a matter of fact, sensation is one of the functions of the mind (the other is thinking). Descartes uses the analogy of the wax to prove his point.
As we can see, a solid wax and melted wax are the same wax. For some thinkers, such as the empiricists, it is the senses that distinguishes a solid wax from a melted wax. For Descartes, however, the ability to distinguish a solid wax from a melted wax is not the function of the senses but of thought. In other words, it is “thought” or the “reasoning mind” that makes the judgment that a solid wax and melted wax are the same wax.
For Descartes, therefore, because the senses can be deceived, physical objects, including bodies, are properly perceived only by the intellect. Indeed, for Descartes, the mind is the only thing that one can be certain of.
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation III): On God’s Existence
One of the central points in meditation III is Descartes’ attempt to prove the existence of God. Here, Descartes argues that the idea of God is necessarily true because it is grasped with clarity and distinctness. As we can see, Descartes’ ontological proofs of God’s existence is based on the notion of “clear and distinct” ideas. On the one hand, an idea is clear for Descartes if one cannot help taking notice of it, such as toothache. On the other hand, an idea is distinct if it cannot be confused with anything else. For example, the idea of a table cannot be confused with the idea of a chair.
Now, in proving that the idea of God is clear and distinct, Descartes introduces his theory of ideas. According to Descartes, there are three types of ideas, namely:
1) innate,
2) adventitious, and
3) fictitious.
According to Descartes, innate ideas are ideas within us that do not come from experience. Take, for example, the mathematical proposition “2 x 2 = 4”, or the statement “All triangles have three angles”. As we can see, we do not resort to experience in order to prove the point that twice two is always four or the fact that there is not at least one triangle that does not have three angles. Through mental processes alone, we can logically conclude that indeed twice two is always four, or all triangles have three angles.
It is important to note that for Descartes, innate ideas are not present in us the moment we are born. Hence, babies and mentally defective adults do not have innate ideas. This is because for Descartes, innate ideas are proper only to, or can only be possessed by, a rationally developed mind. What is there the moment we are born is the possibility for our mind to become rationally developed, which in turn enables us to possess innate ideas.
Adventitious ideas are ideas that are based on our experience with the world and the things around it. For example, we may say “Sugar is sweet”. Of course, as Descartes would have us believe, we can only be sure that the statement “Sugar is sweet” is true if we have experienced it, that is, if we have personally tasted it.
Fictitious ideas are those ideas that are the product of our imagination. Consider, for example, the idea of a unicorn. Of course, there is no unicorn in reality (hence, fictitious), but we can come up with this idea by combining the idea of a horse and a horn. So, if we imagine a horse with a single, large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead, then we have arrived at the idea of a unicorn.
Now, what is the point of Descartes in introducing these three types of ideas in relation to his concept of God as innate?
According to Descartes, our idea of God is innate and is placed in us by God. And because innate ideas as self-evident, clear, and distinct, then our idea of God is also self-evident, clear, and distinct. Therefore, God necessarily exists.
However, Descartes’ ontological proof for God’s existence goes like this: “If something exists, then it must be caused by something else. The only possible ultimate cause is an infinite, perfect being. But because God is the only infinite and perfect being, therefore, God exists.”
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation IV): On Truth and Falsity
In the third meditation, Descartes was certain that God is perfectly good. However, if God is perfectly good, how then is error or falsity possible?
According to Descartes, everything that God created is perfect. But God created humans as finite beings whose finitude still leaves room for error. Descartes illustrates this point in this way:
But why didn’t God create humans as perfect beings so that humans would not err?
According to Descartes, God could have willed it. God could have created humans as perfect beings, but according to Descartes, man cannot fathom the mystery of God. Hence, God’s motives and reasons for creating humans as imperfect beings are incomprehensible.
What about the origin of truth? How certain is Descartes about the existence of the “I”? What if God deceives him?
Here, Descartes brought again the demon problem. According to Descartes, since God is perfectly good, then he cannot deceive us. This is because if God deceives us, then he is not God because “to deceive” someone is an act of an imperfect being. Therefore, Descartes is certain about the existence of “truth”, of the “I” because God as a perfect being would not deceive us. What this implies is that God cannot be the source of error.
Now, if God is not the source of error, then who is responsible for the existence of error or falsity? For Descartes, the concepts of “intellect” and “will” are they keys to answering this question.
According to Descartes, both the intellect and will are gifts from God. Descartes argues that the intellect as the faculty of knowledge cannot be the source of error. Because the intellect simply perceives ideas, it cannot err. It must be noted that for Descartes, the intellect allows us to perceive ideas only; it does not make judgments. This is because judgments are the business of the will. Now, since it is judgments that can either be true or false, and that since judgment is the primary function of the will, then, according to Descartes, it is the will that is the source of error. It is the will that commits mistakes.
How is this possible?
According to Descartes, when the will (which is the faculty of choice or freedom of the will) passes judgments on matters that are not clearly understood, error comes into the fore. What this implies at the end of it all is that, to avoid error in judgment, as Descartes would have us believe, it (judgments or decisions) must be guided by reason or the intellect.
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation V): On the Essence of Material Objects and more on God’s Existence
It must be noted that God is reconsidered in meditation V. Meditation V is also a transition to a more important sixth meditation.
One of the central points in meditation V is Descartes’ attempt to know whether materials things exist independently of the mind. But because Descartes has put the testimony of the senses in doubt, then Descartes just “see” these materials things. In other words, Descartes simply observes these things. Thus, Descartes resorts to the intellect and consider more carefully the “idea” of these things, which is all that is available to him.
However, it should be noted that Descartes postponed the discussion on whether materials things exist in reality outside of the mind until the sixth meditation and instead discussed what he thought as the 3rd proof of God’s existence. Meditation V, therefore, is devoted to the discussion of the discovery of the 3rd proof of God’s existence.
Now, Descartes argues that clear and distinct ideas have a nature or essence of themselves. And for Descartes, this necessarily implies existence. Since our idea of God is clear and distinct, Descartes, concludes that indeed God exists. Descartes illustrates this argument this way:
- God, by definition, is a being of infinite perfection.
- Existence is a perfection (for everything that exists is perfect; otherwise, it cannot exist).
- Therefore, God exists.
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation VI): On the Existence of Material Objects and the Real Distinction of Mind and Body
We know that since the intellect conceives some things clearly and distinctly, some things necessarily exists therefore. Now, the question is, what is our proof that these things really exist in reality? Or how do we know that indeed material things exist?
Put differently, we know that the essence of material things is extension. In other words, all things are extended. Hence, to be a thing is 1) to have size and shape, 2) to endure, and 3) to be movable and changeable. Now, are they any?
To answer these questions, Descartes initially offers the discussion on the dynamics of the imagination as proof. But Descartes thought that although the imagination can produce images of reality, it cannot be a strong proof to the existence of materials things. This is why Descartes turns to the senses.
Indeed, Descartes perceives that he has a body that exists in the world, and this body can experience pain, pleasure, hardness, and the like. And this body can perceive other bodies with extension, shape, movement, hardness, heat, color, smell, tastes, and the like.
Now, Descartes was convinced that these perceptions all come from outside sources, and that these perceptions come to us involuntarily. It is clear that since material things exist, it is logical to suppose that the source of sensory ideas in some way resembles the ideas themselves. Hence, for Descartes, all knowledge comes from without via the sense.
But isn’t it that for Descartes the senses are unreliable sources of ideas and knowledge? In fact, Descartes insists in the earlier discussion of the Meditations (as well as in the Discourse) that we should not rely on the senses because they only deceive us?
Descartes seemed to have changed mind here. According to Descartes, the situation is now very different from the first meditation. For Descartes now knows that God who created these material things “exist” and is “not a deceiver”. Therefore, those material things that are perceived by the mind via the senses exist in reality. Descartes illustrates his argument this way:
- I have a “strong inclination” to believe in the reality of the material (extended) things that I seem to sense. (To put it differently, their independent reality seems to be one of the things I am “taught by nature”.)
- God must have created me with this inclination.
- If material things do not exist independently, then God must be a deceiver.
- But God is not a deceiver.
- So, material things exist with those properties I conceive to be essential to them.
Final Note: On the Discussion Between Mind and Body
For Descartes, mind and body are both substances, and so they are completely distinct from each other. On the one hand, mind is a non-extended thinking thing. On the other hand, body is an extended non-thinking thing.
Part of the reason why Descartes aims to establish the distinction between mind and body is to establish the fact that the soul is immortal. As we can see, the distinction between mind and body opens up the possibility of establishing the immortality of the soul since it involves the idea that the “decay of the body does not imply the destruction of the soul”.
But how does Descartes prove the crucial claim that the mind and body are capable of existing apart from each other?
Here, Descartes invokes what he calls 1) clear and distinct conception of the mind as a thing that is complete and does not require any extended qualities in order to exist, and 2) the corresponding clear and distinct conception of the body not requiring any mental properties in order to exist.
As we can see, Descartes’ real distinction argument turns on the reliability of so-called clear and distinct perception. However, Descartes did not give a concrete example of a mind existing apart from the body, and a body existing apart from the mind.
Now, despite the real distinction between mind and body, Descartes argues that these substances nevertheless interact with each other. According to Descartes, the mind causes certain changes in the body and the body in the mind. But when asked about the specificity of this interaction, Descartes was unable to answer and instead appeal to God. In Descartes’ understanding, God sets up or institutes those particular causal relations between mind and body that are, in general, the most conducive to the well-being of the composite of mind and body. Descartes illustrates:
- God can create anything that I can clearly and distinctly conceiveꟷthere being no impossibility in it.
- If God can create one thing independently of another, the first thing is distinct from the second.
- I have a clear and distinct idea of my essence as a thinking thing.
- So, God can create a thinking thing (a soul) independently of the body.
- I also have a clear and distinct idea of my body as an extended thingꟷits essence.
- So, God can create a body independently of a soul.
- So, my soul is a reality distinct from the body.
- So, I, as a thinking thing (soul), can exist without my body.
Concluding Remarks
At the end of the Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes was convinced that he has achieved his main objective: skepticism and solipsism have been defeated and the basic structure of reality has been clearly delineated, namely, God, souls, and material things. Descartes also concluded that reality is composed of infinite substance and two kinds of substances: thinking and extended substances. Finally, Descartes believes that he has successfully shown that indeed knowledge is possible, that, contrary to the position of the Skeptics, the human mind can attain knowledge.