Transcript Meditation Four

Meditation IV
God is not a Deceiver, Truth Criterion & Problem of Error
Proving Everything I Clearly and
Distinctly Perceive is True
1) I lack any faculty whereby to discover anything I clearly and
distinctly perceive to be mistaken.
2) God would be a deceiver if, lacking such a faculty, my nature
was in fact so defective that I tended inexorably to error and
illusion.
3) By the conclusion of the proof that God is not a deceiver, it
follows that it is impossible that I am by nature prone to error
(i.e. the metaphysical doubt grounded on the malicious demon
hypothesis is refuted).
4) Since the only ground I had for doubting things I clearly and
distinct perceive (i.e. intuitively and demonstratively
apprehended propositions of logic, mathematics, and
metaphysics) is now removed, it follows that everything I clearly
and distinctly perceive is true.
1st Proof that God is Not a Deceiver
1. The will to deceive is evidence of malice or
weakness on the part of the deceiver.
2. Malice or weakness are imperfections (are badmaking, not good-making).
3. Therefore, any deceiver is imperfect.
4. God is maximally perfect (has no
imperfections).
∴ God is not a deceiver.
Consequences of the 1st Proof
The First Problem of Error: The “Overproduction” Problem
Given what has already been established, i.e., that i)
God exists, and ii) God created my faculty of
judgment, and iii) is not a deceiver, I should never
make errors in judgment.
But I do.
Therefore, the proof proves too much.
Revised Proof that removes
Overproduction Problem
1) From the supreme being only being may flow
(non-being - nothingness - neither needs nor can
have a cause).
2) As finite and limited, creatures (created beings)
consist of non-being as well as being.
3) Only the being of creatures can derive from
God, not their non-being.
4) Truth is the being of knowledge, falsity
(ignorance) its non-being.
5) Falsity can never flow from God, never be
caused by God.
6) As the cause both of my essence and my
existence, God cannot be the cause of my errors.
7) Therefore, God does not deceive me; and by
similar reasoning, we may clearly and distinctly
perceive that no being is ever deceived by God.
Notice: #6 flatly denies what the overproduction
problem asserts: that God is the cause of my errors.
The Second Problem of Error
“Error is not a pure negation, but rather a privation or lack of some
knowledge which somehow should be in me.” -- RD
Descartes’ worry: if errors in judgment are
privations, then God, while not responsible for
creating these errors, seems nonetheless responsible
for a failure to give me some knowledge I could
have had, and thus has given me an imperfect faculty
of judgment.
Why this is a problem: because God, being perfect,
cannot create anything imperfect.
RD considers two initial ways one might solve this problem:
1) at God might have reasons for making us imperfect in
judgment, but that given God’s infinite perfections and
powers, these reasons could be beyond our comprehension.
2) that while we may seem imperfect in our acts of judgment
that involve errors, the overall perfection of the world is
served by these errors.
These two solutions seem to be proposed and then immediately
abandoned in favor of another approach, one that hinges on
showing that God did not fail to make me perfect in my faculty
of judgment, even though I make errors with it. This solution
depends on noticing something that has been missed so far.......
My faculty of judgment is not one mental power but two!
My faculty of judgment is a combination of two
powers acting in concert:
1) a power of intellect (the power to combine
concepts into the form of a judgment)
2) a power of will (the power to commit myself to the
belief contained in the judgment--the means by
which a judgment becomes an assertion)
How this solves the
Second Problem of Error
If each of the two powers of mind that constitute my faculty of
judgment are each perfect in themselves, then God has not, though
perfect her/him/itself, created something imperfect in me.
Descartes then argues that the intellect and will are each
perfect powers.
1) The intellect is perfect because it is simply the power to
grasp ideas and to combine them in judgments, and in each
of these capacities, the intellect shows no defect [there are
no ideas we have that we cannot combine with any others],
and all ideas we do grasp are grasped (which is all that is
required to be a faculty-of-grasping-ideas)
2) The power of will is perfect, since all a will is for
is to make choices and our will is entirely unfettered
in its capacity to choose (in this, our will is no less
perfect than God’s).
The real cause of errors in human judgment:
3) We extend our will beyond the scope of our
intellect, which is limited (it only grasps a subset of
all the possible ideas pertaining to all the realities
contained in the world, and thus is only capable of
finite knowledge of the world) and thereby, commit
ourselves to assertions that are in error.
How to Avoid Errors in Judgment:
Restrict our will to the scope of our intellect
What this means in practice:
Refrain from committing to any beliefs that could possibly be in
error.
How we can do that:
Only commit to beliefs that satisfy the truth criterion, since this
ensures the truth of the judgments we do commit to.
Is Descartes now Through with the
Problem of Error?
Nope......He now considers reasons for continuing to think God has
somehow failed to act from a godly and perfect good will by
creating human beings with a two-power faculty of judgment that,
for those that have not read The Meditations, will allow us to make
errors in judgment.
Continuing Reasons for Unhappiness
with RD’s Solution
1. Although God has not failed to act in accordance
with godly perfection and good will by making
human minds capable of error, surely God could
have made us smarter, and if so, since God is
supremely good, and our being smarter would make
our lives better, in making us less smart God has
failed to act from perfect goodness. God could have
made me incapable of thinking anything that
involves intellectual error, and in not doing so, has a
responsibility for the errors I do make.
Descartes’ Reply:
We couldn’t have unlimited intellects, since if we
did, we would be God, and there can only be one of
those (RD does not say this in Med. IV, but it is the
reason for what he does say, which is that we, as
created beings, must necessarily be limited.
Rejoinder: but that still does not explain why we are
limited precisely at the level we are nor why God did
not make us incapable of these mistakes (i.e., the
mistakes we actually do make).
Descartes’ Reply:
While if I were incapable of thinking what is false, I
would certainly be more perfect than I am, I cannot
know whether the world as a whole is more or less
perfect with creatures who, like myself, are not
immune from error (and notice: in order to settle this
question, I must understand what would determine
the overall goodness of the entire world, something
that exceeds my finite intelligence)
Furthermore, what good reason do I have to
complain that God has not made me more perfect
than some other created being capable of judgment?