Juliet Arowosaye UCOR 132: Basic Philosophical Questions Meditations on First Philosophy; Descartes’ Doubts and Resolutions In Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes, the meditator presents the possibility that everything he, and all humans, have known and seen could be false. He struggles to find any reason to not doubt that our senses have just been deceiving us our whole lives. Thus, he reaches the conclusion that everything we have seen and known, as well as our existence, must be called into doubt. Descartes attempts to unravel the meditator’s mentality by presenting ways in which we are possibly being deceived. In what follows, I will argue that the meditator has adequate reasons to doubt everything he has come to experience …show more content…
He argues that "[He] now seems to be able to lay it down as a general rule that whatever [he] perceives very clearly and distinctly is true" (Descartes 35). The reason, he explains, that his clear and distinct perceptions are so reliable is because of God’s existence; particularly, because of God’s existence as a beneficent God. According to Descartes, God simply cannot be a deceiver; God is perfect. Perfection can only include positive traits such as beneficence, unconditional love, justice, and wisdom. Therefore, God cannot, and would never deceive us. He then says that without his knowledge of God's existence, none of his knowledge could be so clear and distinct. It is easy for one to be puzzled by how poorly this resolution was articulated; how is that Descartes' proof of the reliability of clear and distinct perceptions is because of the existence of a [non-deceiving] God, yet his proof of God’s existence [as a non-deceiver] is because of the reliability of his clear and distinct perceptions? This apparent circular reasoning, formally known as the Cartesian Circle, makes his argument appear weak and void. Both parts of the Cartesian circle make sense, but not together. It would have strengthened Descartes’ argument to better phrase this part of the