René Descartes is well known for both his dreaming argument and evil demon argument. I am going to discuss both of these arguments that Descartes presents, giving particular attention to the evil demon argument. The evil demon argument has more depth to it, and can be easier to grasp as being true and so is, in my opinion, the stronger of these two arguments that have been presented by Descartes. I will first explain the two arguments, and the validity or truth in each of the arguments, and then introduce criticisms of both in order to conclude that Descartes’ evil demon argument is evidentially the stronger of the two.
The dreaming argument suggests that we have many perceptions while awake that are similar to the ones that we have while dreaming. Descartes also stated we have no way of proving whether we are having a dreaming experience or a waking experience as there is really no way to prove that we are not dreaming, and so many of our perceptions may be false if there is some possibility that we are currently dreaming. If we cannot prove that we are not dreaming, then how can we distinguish between dreaming and waking experiences; unless we die.
Critics of Descartes’ dreaming argument say that there are some very clear differences between our living world and the dreaming world that Descartes speaks of. For example, in a dream world people are able to do things that would never happen in the waking world. In a dreaming world, people may be able to do things they would never even have imagined were possible in everyday life such as having the ability to fly, or talk to animals, or have their toys come to life; and various other crazy suggestions. Critics say that things like this are just not possible in the waking world, and therefore, the dreaming argument, is not the strongest as no one is going to have any confusion between the two world if they are dreaming up some ridiculous experiences that would never be possible in our ordinary lives. They also claim that because of the differences between what is and isn’t possible in the real world when compared to a dreaming world, we can distinguish being awake from dreaming, because with some experiences you ‘just know’.
Those who believe that the dreaming argument is a plausible one, say that there is no way to tell whether or not we are dreaming. We may think that some of our experiences are dream like or crazy but there is no solid proof or evidence that can show or tell us that we most definitely are not dreaming and so it is possible that this could be a waking experience. Descartes said, that if he saw someone before him that instantly disappeared, he would have no way of telling whether this was a dream situation, or whether this was real life and the person before him was some kind of ghost, spirit or a vision created by the brain. (Reason & Responsibility, p271) Some say that the only way of being able to tell would be if we were to die and then what comes afterwards would indicate whether the experience was a dream that we would wake from and continue on with our life or actual death, where we would not experience waking situations again.
The evil demon argument suggests that we could be being deceived by an evil demon. Descartes said that God would never deceive humans, but this in no way means that God was not capable of creating an evil demon that would deceive us. (Reason &Responsibility p272) This means that Descartes suggested that there was the existence of some kind of evil demon who was able to deceive us in a similar way to the way some believe God can. Descartes suggested that this supposed evil demon was very clever as well as being deceitful and put all of his effort into misleading our minds meaning we are mistaken about all things and this includes mathematics, something that cannot be a part of the dreaming argument . We cannot prove or be certain that there is not an evil demon deceiving us and so, in Descartes’ view, we cannot be certain of anything.
Those who criticise the evil demon argument say that the idea that there is an evil being deceiving us is a heavy claim, and even the idea that an evil being exists is one that is hard to believe. Critics such as Keith Crome state that Descartes only suggests that an evil demon may exist and is not sure of this. He believes that this idea of a demon is supposed to be an appeal to people’s imaginations. As well as this he believes that Descartes is suddenly doubting everything because he cannot be certain that there is not an evil demon deceiving him, meaning Descartes is doubting the existence of God who he is supposed to believe in and seems to be giving claim to a weak argument. It is also argued that the evil demon argument is fairly weak in the sense that even an extremely powerful evil demon cannot make someone think that they exist if they do not in fact exist. If we are alive and exist, then that is that, and if we were not alive or in existence, no evil demon could make us think that we are. Similarly, it is said that an evil demon has no way of making someone believe they are thinking when they are not thinking; making them think while at the same time making them not think would be impossible. Simple questions can be answered without us feeling like we are being ‘deceived’.
In my opinion, the evil demon argument is the stronger of the two arguments presented by Descartes. This is because this argument has quite a lot of depth, and applies to mathematics where the dreaming argument does not. Whether we are awake or in a dreaming state, 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 and this is certain because mathematics is ‘not based on sensation but on reason’ (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,2009). Even when we are dreaming, facts still exist and the answers to mathematical questions will still be the same. With the evil demon argument, an evil demon could be convincing us of everything we believe in, including the fact that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Only some kind of powerful evil demon would be able to give us some kind of false reality and perceive our senses. Because of this, in the opinion of Descartes, we cannot really be certain of anything if there is an evil demon deceiving us, as even things we think are facts could be false and we could be tricked into believing things with no way to tell whether these are false or not.
Furthermore, the evil demon argument is a good sceptical argument. The evil demon is, hypothetically, capable of convincing us of anything, meaning it can form doubts in our minds about everything that it is possible to be doubtful of, whether simple or more complex. The evil demon argument is clearly the stronger of the two presented by Descartes, as every time we have to make a realisation, an evil demon could be erasing our memory of this realisation and it could be doing this multiple times a day and we would not know and would be assuming we are thinking rationally. In order to believe the evil demon argument at all we must also believe that we exist, according to Descartes, as you have to exist in order to be somehow deceived by an evil demon. In comparison to the dreaming argument, the evil demon argument just seems a lot more believable, if you are going to believe either, as it seems more likely that we could be being deceived by some God-like person, than that we are never able to tell when we are awake or when we are dreaming.
In conclusion I think that Descartes’ evil demon argument seems more plausible than his dreaming argument. With the evil demon argument being able to be applied to mathematics and other facts that the dreaming argument cannot be applied to it seems like a more believable argument, though some of the criticisms of the demon argument, such as the fact that an evil demon cannot make us think we are thinking if we are not, are fair criticisms of this argument.