Sample Dissertation On Meditations By Descartes

The Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes is one of the foremost works in philosophy, especially since it is one of the works that approaches the concept that the world is real through a step by step analysis. In order to prove the same, Descartes takes a unique approach which shall be the focal point of this paper. This paper will begin by presenting an overview on the Meditations, especially the relationship between philosophy and science, after which it will proceed to examine the manner in which Descartes begins his observations from the method of doubt and discovery of the mind to the final conclusion that the world is real. Further, the paper will also compare and contrast some of Descartes’ observations to those of Aristotle.

Overview of Descartes’ Meditations on the First Philosophy

The title and the philosophical approach stem from Descartes’ earlier work ‘Discourse on the Method.’ This work was one of the earliest philosophical treatises that touched on the questions of the human soul and God outside theology. As a result, several objections arose from various quarters for this work. The first main objection was that it does not follow from the fact that the human mind solely reflecting on itself does not perceive itself to be other than an object that thinks. Further, its nature or essence consists only in its being a thing that thinks, in the sense that this word excludes all other things which might also be supposed to pertain to the nature of the soul. (Descartes 1-3) The second objection was that it does not follow from the fact that I have in myself the idea of something more perfect than I am, that this idea is more perfect than I, and much less that what is represented by this idea exists. (Descartes 1-4) Besides these two objections, several other objections were raised by philosophers and other eminent thinkers. The Meditations on First Philosophy arose as an answer to these objections, hence the title that suggests that the book was a thought out retort to the objections on Descartes’ own first discourse. In this book, Descartes focuses on the relation between philosophy and science. According to Descartes, Philosophy is like a tree with Metaphysics at its root, Physics the trunk and all other sciences the branches. Thus, Descartes highlights clearly the close relationship between Philosophy and the Sciences.
Descartes in his letter to the theologians of Paris states “I have noticed that you, along with all the theologians, did not only affirm that the existence of God may be proved by the natural reason, but also that it may be inferred from the Holy Scriptures, that knowledge about Him is much clearer than that which we have of many created things.” (1-1) According to Descartes, since the knowledge of God is much clearer by natural reason than other sciences (which he refers as the knowledge of created things), one must prove the existence of God so that the possibility of science follows logically as per the principle of natural reason itself.

The Meditations

The first meditation talks about the method of doubt. In this method, Descartes begins by examining his experiences of the external world and the body, concluding that all these are merely delusions. (Descartes 1-7) He feels that the whole world and, as a result, the sciences are created by a Supreme God who is a scheming deceiver whose aim is to lead him into a sense of false belief. In all, Descartes takes a stand where he doubts every single thing including the intent of God.
In the second meditation, Descartes examines the nature of the Human Mind. He firstly begins by questioning the very notion of Man as a rational animal. (1-9) This analysis leads him to believe that he is something - a thinking thing, leading him to surmise that thought exists and cannot be separated from him. The direct consequence of the existence of thought indicates that he (as a thinking entity) exists. (1-10) To make the matter easy, Descartes draws an analogy with wax from the honeycomb. He observes that it is the mind that determines the exact nature of the wax both before approaching the fire and afterwards (and not imagination), based on its characteristic smell and texture that is lost after exposing the wax to fire. Despite the change, the wax is perceptible in one or another. It is the mind and the capacity of thought (and not the sense organs or imagination) that allows one to make this discrimination and perceive these objects based on changes.
In the third meditation, Descartes goes into length at the concept of ideas in the human mind. He puts forth three types of ideas, namely innate, adventitious and fictitious. Innate Ideas are those that are already present in the human mind, such as concepts of God, shapes and forms et.al. Adventitious Ideas are those ideas that the human mind receives from external sources, for instance, planetary bodies, nature and its forms, etc. Lastly, fictitious ideas, as the name suggests, are made up by the mind without any external influences using pure imagination, for instance centaurs, goblins, etc. While innate and adventitious ideas cannot be modified at will, fictitious ideas can be readily modified. However, the mind is active in the case of innate and fictitious ideas, while the mind is passive in case of adventitious ideas. Since the idea of God is innate, Descartes surmises that the concept could not have been drawn from nothing. (1-16) He discovers that this innate idea must have some cause and does not rule out the possibility of God Himself having placed this idea in one’s mind since ultimately God is Himself the creator. (1-18)
In the fourth Meditation, Descartes shows that all these things which we very clearly and distinctly perceive are true, and at the same time the nature of error and falsity are simply defects that are the products of one’s will not staying within the limits of one’s knowledge. (1-22) He regards will as a divine gift from God and does not believe that free will is responsible for falsity, but rather the human tendency to extend free will to matters that one does not comprehend or understand. As per Descartes, errors and falsity are produced when one’s acts go astray, based on one’s own mind and resulting limitations. His final comment, “God, I say, who being supremely perfect, cannot be the cause of any error; and consequently we must conclude that such a conception [or such a judgment] is true,” bears testimony to the fact that by the end of the fourth meditation Descartes has credited God with the truth. (1-22)
In the fifth meditation, Descartes clearly recognizes that the certainty and truth of all knowledge depends alone on the knowledge of the true God. He states that before he knew Him, he could not have a perfect knowledge of any other thing since all other objects depend on Him. He revisits the concept of ideas in this meditation. Having known God, Descartes feels that he now has the means of acquiring perfect knowledge of an infinitude of things, not only of those which relate to God Himself and other intellectual matters, but also of those which pertain to physical nature in so far as it is the object of pure mathematics [which have no concern with whether it exists or not]. (1-25) One can understand that in this meditation Descartes has attempted to prove the existence of God using an alternate approach.
In the sixth meditation, Descartes differentiates between the action of the understanding and that of the imagination. In this meditation, he shows that the mind of a man, in reality, is separate from the body, and yet they are closely joined together that they form, in a matter of speaking, a single entity. All the errors which proceed from the senses are then surveyed, while the means of avoiding them are demonstrated, and finally all the reasons from which we may deduce the existence of material things are set forth. However, he does coherently establish the following points; that there is in truth ‘a world,’ that men possess bodies, and other such things which never have been doubted by anyone of sense. In examining these aspects closely one sees that these aspects are neither very robust nor as obvious as those arguments that lead one to the awareness of one’s mind and of God. Descartes therefore accepts the reality of the existence of material things as well as highlights the distinction between the Soul and Man in this meditation. In essence, he concludes that the world is real just as much as God is real.
If one examines these meditations, one can see Descartes’ journey beginning from the method of doubt about the existence of this world to the final conclusion that the world is real. In doing so, he traverses various concepts including, the discovery of mind and ideas (their distinctions such as innate, adventitious and fictitious ideas), as well as other concepts.

Aristotle and Descartes – Comparison

The views of Aristotle and Descartes differ on a number of aspects. To examine pointedly one can consider the Second Meditation of Descartes. In this meditation, Descartes clearly believes and, to an extent, proves that the soul and the body are two distinct entities. Since the human body can take different forms, with the passage of time, Descartes feels that the body is somewhat inferior to the soul. He adds, “From this it follows that the human body may indeed easily enough perish, but the mind [or soul of man (I make no distinction between them)] is owing to its nature immortal.” (1-5) Therefore, Descartes uses the inferiority of the body to be stable in form, shape and its ability to perish as the reason for the consequent superiority as well as the immortality of the soul.
In a sense, Aristotle too subscribes to the superiority of the soul over the body however, his conception of the nature of the soul is markedly different from that of Descartes. The most important point of distinction is that Aristotle believed that the soul was subject to death since its demise occurs at the specific moment that the body ceases to exist. Once the body dies, as per Aristotle, the soul cannot survive independently, but the mind within the soul does survive and reaches the Divine upon death. (Aristotle 97) As stated earlier, since the soul has specific attributes and belongs to a specific body, one can also understand that the soul can never exist without the body. Therefore, while Aristotle subscribes to the mortal nature of the soul, Descartes clearly proceeds to conclude that the soul is immortal in nature. Secondly, while Aristotle talks about the mind within the soul, Descartes uses the terms ‘mind’ and ‘soul’ almost interchangeably since he makes no difference between them.
Both Aristotle and Descartes have different views on Perception. In his analogy on the honey wax, Descartes clearly refuses to give any credit to the five senses, but rather prefers to give due credit to the mind (or the soul) since he believed that the mind could even perceive altered objects which the senses could not decipher. On the other hand, Aristotle considers the perceptive faculty to arise when one or more of the senses are used by a subject to perceive sense-objects. (Aristotle 110) Therefore, unlike Descartes, Aristotle does not give credit to the mind for sensory object perception.
Similarly, primary qualities as defined by Descartes are the object’s real qualities, while secondary qualities are not real, but just names. In case of Aristotle, common objects of senses (that correspond to Descartes’ primary qualities) as well as proper objects of senses (Descartes’ secondary qualities) are also real. In this case, common objects could be movement, shape, number etc, while proper objects could be colors, perfumes, flavors etc.
The other fundamental difference is that Aristotle believed that souls were different depending on the living beings. For instance, according to Aristotle, animals had a markedly different soul and mind as compared to human beings. Human beings, therefore, were at the top of the pyramid followed by other life forms since human souls were superior compared to other living beings. On the other hand, while Descartes is not very vocal about the attributes of the soul, he does not differentiate between the mind and the soul. Therefore, one can surmise that Descartes’ view would be that the souls for all living beings are the same, only the bodies differ (the reason why he considered the soul to be immortal and superior to the body).
In conclusion, one can see the brilliant manner in which Descartes progressed in his meditations from the concept of doubt to the final conclusion that God exists and that the world is real. Further, a comparison between the views of Aristotle and Descartes yields several important differences, starting with the permanence of the soul. Further, both the philosophers have contrasting views on nearly every subject, including the concept of the soul, Perception, qualities and the difference in souls depending on the body (animal or human).

Works Cited

Aristotle. De Anima (On the Soul). Trans. Hugh Lawson-Tancred. New York: Penguin Group, 1986. PDF File.
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. Elizabeth Haldane. 1996. Web. 09 Mar 2015. PDF File