With that in mind, Descartes begins to sketch arguments that call all his a priori knowledge into doubt. The first of those, is an argument regarding God. Descartes writes how it is firmly rooted in his mind that there is an omnipotent God, who created him, and the whole world. He follows that by adding, however, that there is no way for him to know if God did in fact create the earth, the sky, and the the things he sees, but is merely deceiving Descartes into believing they exist. Furthermore, what is not to say that God could be actually deceiving Descartes’ mind in relation to rational knowledge as well? He writes, “how do I know that God has not brought it about that I too go wrong every time I add two and three [...]” God, being Descartes’ creator and the creator of everything else, and so powerful, might be manipulating things Descartes could never even conceive to be false. Descartes does point out, however, that it would be inconsistent with the idea of a God that is supremely good to allow him to be deceived all the time. Nonetheless, Descartes points out he is sometimes deceived, and it would be equally conflicting to God’s benevolent nature to create something that is deceived occasionally. Given the religious times this book was written, and that Descartes was a religious man himself, this argument seems to be specially striking. Not only is he providing reason to doubt knowledge that seemed to be certain and undeniable, but he is also doubting the benevolent nature of God. With this argument, Descartes alludes to the fact that a third party might be responsible for our erroneous beliefs. His first points, about how he cannot know if there is a real sky, or if God is only making him believe there is one, is somehow similar to the dream argument: how can he know if the things he sees really exist or are only real in his mind. In this case, however, it is not because he might be sleeping, but because there might be a separate being that is purposefully deceiving him. And since this being is so powerful, and is able to deceive Descartes regarding empirical truths, this deceiving God could also be deceiving Descartes regarding all his rational knowledge, and things he believed to be necessary truths. So not only is his a posteriori knowledge possibly wrong, but it is possible all his a priori knowledge is wrong too. The major fault of this argument, is that it assumes God’s existence and his role as the creator of the universe to be true. That is why, in his next paragraph, Descartes provides a similar argument, without acknowledging God at all. In the following paragraph Descartes grants that God might not exist. Although making it clear he is not one of those who do not believe in God, he attempts to think like one. He writes that according to the non-believers, humans must have arrived at their present state by different means, like fate or chance. Furthermore, if God does not exist, all that is known and perceived by humans must come from their own mental equipment. So if we are ever deceived, it is our mental equipment’s fault, for it is imperfect and allows us to be deceived.
…show more content…
Since he admits this is a rather difficult task, Descartes presents one last reason for doubt, which he will use to guard himself to assenting to any falsehoods. He states that it is maybe not God - who according to Descartes, is supremely good - that is deceiving him, but instead, an evil demon. This malicious demon is exceptionally powerful, and is doing all he can to deceive Descartes. The evil demon argument is an argument that entangle all the previous reasons for doubt. This evil demon, which has “employed all his energies in order to deceive [Descartes]”, can account for doubts of both a posteriori and a priori knowledge. The evil demon might deceive Descartes into believing there is a sky an air, and might also make Descartes go wrong whenever he is counting the sides of a square. This argument, more than add anything new, simply reinstates how everything could be false - because there is a powerful creature working all its powers to ensure Descartes is always
Since he admits this is a rather difficult task, Descartes presents one last reason for doubt, which he will use to guard himself to assenting to any falsehoods. He states that it is maybe not God - who according to Descartes, is supremely good - that is deceiving him, but instead, an evil demon. This malicious demon is exceptionally powerful, and is doing all he can to deceive Descartes. The evil demon argument is an argument that entangle all the previous reasons for doubt. This evil demon, which has “employed all his energies in order to deceive [Descartes]”, can account for doubts of both a posteriori and a priori knowledge. The evil demon might deceive Descartes into believing there is a sky an air, and might also make Descartes go wrong whenever he is counting the sides of a square. This argument, more than add anything new, simply reinstates how everything could be false - because there is a powerful creature working all its powers to ensure Descartes is always