Descartes’ Methodical Doubt: A Path to Truth
Descartes advocated for only accepting as true that which appears in the mind with clarity and distinction. His rules included:
- Evidence: Only accept simple, clear, and distinct natures as evidence. Complex problems consist of complex natures.
- Synthesis: Once simple natures are understood, they must be recomposed through synthesis.
- Enumeration: Review everything to ensure nothing is skipped.
Methodical Doubt: Finding a Foundation for Truth
The goal of methodical doubt is to find a safe and true foundation upon which reason can rely beyond any doubt. This involves seeking a first and indubitable rule that requires evidence. Descartes’ methodical doubt is not skepticism, which doubts any truth. Instead, it’s a method of approaching the truth.
The difference between methodical doubt and skepticism is that skepticism doesn’t create doubt to investigate further. Methodical doubt questions everything to establish a foundation of truth. Furthermore, mathematical uncertainties and sensitive items perceived by the senses are not treated as reliable.
Meditations: The First Truth
In his meditations, Descartes identifies the first truth, a truth beyond obvious questions: the truth of necessary existence. Even as a subject of doubt and a victim of deceit, the act of doubt or hesitation cannot be eliminated. Thus, “I think, therefore I am.” The evidence of one’s existence is the first model of truth and certainty, affirming that truth can be presented clearly and distinctly.
Intuition is obvious, clear, and distinct, fulfilling the requirements of the first step of the method. Evidence is characterized by clarity and distinction.
There are ideas in the mind, volitions (rejections or desires), and judgments (denials and affirmations). There are three types of ideas:
- Ideas we have in mind.
- Foolish ideas.
- Factual ideas.
Substances and Attributes
A substance is something that exists in such a way that it needs nothing but itself to exist. This applies only to God (infinite substance) because He alone is independent and exists by Himself. The difference between infinite substance (God) and finite substance (thought and extension) is crucial.
Substances have one attribute that is their essence and can be identified, and some models are the ways in which it appears. The substance corresponds to the wide world we perceive with our senses.
The Problem of Solipsism
A problem arising from methodical doubt is solipsism: can we only be sure of our own existence, of our subjective consciousness, because “I think, therefore I am”?
The difference between God and man is that God has things in power, and man has the knowledge actualized. The finite is the “I,” and God is infinite.
Innate Ideas and the Idea of God
Ideas are thoughts and can be innate, adventitious (coming from outside), or factitious (forged from the same subject by adventitious means). The idea of God cannot be an adventitious idea because there is nothing infinite or perfect in the physical realm. Nor can it be a factitious idea because factitious ideas originate from adventitious ones. Therefore, the idea of God can only be an innate idea.
As a finite subject, if I had created myself with the idea of a perfect being, I would have equipped myself with the perfections of that idea, effectively making myself God. Therefore, someone infinite must have placed the idea of infinity into a finite mind.