In Second Meditation, Descartes claims, after radical doubt, that the only undeniable truth is his own existence because he must exist to think about his existence. His argument is compelling, but for one problem. In this paper, I shall argue that Descartes’ argument that his “thinking” (Descartes, 153) is proof of his existence is flawed because he establishes no premise to claim ownership of this thinking. I will also claim that even if Descartes is creating his own thoughts, albeit a lack of appropriate proof, his argument still does not prove a causal relationship between thinking and existing.
In passage B, Descartes examines the properties of a piece of wax to confirm his existence. By Descartes’ reasoning, even if the wax did not exist or if he did not have eyes to see the wax, he can prove his existence because he must exist to “judge…the wax” (Descartes, 153). Of particular interest to my argument is Descartes’ claim, “it is simply not possible that I who am now thinking am not something” (Descartes, 153). In other words,
…show more content…
Descartes can support this claim by stating that it is universal knowledge that minds are capable of thinking; he is certain of his ability to thinking, so he must have a mind. Because Descartes has a mind and his mind is thinking, then something must exist to do this thinking; thus, Descartes and his mind must exist as result of thinking. While this deductive reasoning seems plausible, I claim that Descartes’ reasoning here is unnecessary. Descartes’ existence can be proven without establishing his ability to think (e.g., to receiving deception from the evil demon). Therefore, Descartes cannot base the action of thinking as the sole criterion of his existence, because it is shown other factors can also prove his