Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy Research Archives 9:279-292 (1983)
|Abstract||According to many critics, Descartes argued in a circle when he presumed to base the certainty (and thus knowledge) of propositions that fulfill his epistemic criterion of being “clearly and distinctly perceived” on the demonstration that God exists and is not a deceiver. But his critics say, that demonstration, as he presented it, presupposed the validity of the same epistemic criterion. I critically examine two major strategies to dispel the appearance of circularity, two ways of interpreting Descartes’ argument.My approach shares with the second strategy the contention that Descartes did adopt the principle that “whatever is clearly and distinctly perceived to be true is true,” prior to his consideration of the God question. Moreover, his demonstration of God’s existence and veracity made use of the principle. But my claim is that the knowledge of God’s existence and veracity is not used to validate the principle of clear and distinct perception (that would be unnecessary). It is used rather to defeat the sceptic’s argument that we cannot have any knowledge of the external, physical world. I proceed to present and explain Descartes’ argument centered around the thesis, “I cannot be certain that (r) any of my representational ideas of the external world are veridical, unless I am certain that (q), God exists and is not a deceiver.” That is, I prove why, for Descartes, (q) is necessary for (r). My discussion exposes some new facets to the principle of clear and distinct perception and reveals the fact that some familiar Cartesian distinctions that were not thought to be relevant to the problem of the Cartesian Circle are crucial to the solution of that problem|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sara F. García-Gómez (1988). God and Descartes' Principle of Clear and Distinct Knowledge. Philosophy Research Archives 14:283-302.
Michael Della Rocca (2005). Descartes, the Cartesian Circle, and Epistemology Without God. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (1):1–33.
Michael Della Rocca (2005). Descartes, the Cartesian Circle, and Epistemology Without God. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (1):1-33.
Dale Jacquette (1996). Descartes' Lumen Naturale and the Cartesian Circle. Philosophy and Theology 9 (3-4):273-320.
Samuel C. Rickless (2005). The Cartesian Fallacy Fallacy. Noûs 39 (2):309–336.
Husain Sarkar (2003). Descartes' Cogito: Saved From the Great Shipwreck. Cambridge University Press.
Ruth Weintraub (1997). The Cartesian Circle and Two Forms of Scepticism. History of Philosophy Quarterly 14 (4):365 - 377.
James Patrick Downey (1987). Commentary on “The Possibility of God”. Faith and Philosophy 4 (2):202-206.
Georges Dicker (1993). Descartes: An Analytical and Historical Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Alice Sowaal (2011). Descartes's Reply to Gassendi: How We Can Know All of God, All at Once, but Still Have More to Learn About Him. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (3):419 - 449.
R. J. Butler (1972). Cartesian Studies. Oxford,B. Blackwell.
M. V. Dougherty (2002). The Importance of Cartesian Triangles: A New Look at Descartes's Ontological Argument. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10 (1):35 – 62.
Geoffrey Gorham (2004). Cartesian Causation: Continuous, Instantaneous, Overdetermined. Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (4):389-423.
Kenneth R. Westphal (1987). Sextus Empiricus Contra René Descartes. Philosophy Research Archives 13:91-128.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads11 ( #107,456 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #17,125 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?