Paste your essay in here…Descartes’ Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
Introduction
In Meditations, seventeenth century French philosopher René Descartes argues for the existence of God. His argument is contingent upon existence as a perfection and that it is inherent of God. Perhaps the strongest and simplest claim that Descartes gives is that because we can imagine things, they are conceivable and because we can conceive them, they exist. In this paper, I will argue that the ontological argument fails because existence is not a property that things ‘possess’ like they ‘possess’ other properties, and just because we conceive of something, does not mean it exists.
The Argument
In Meditation V, Descartes provides the ontological argument for the existence of God. It is important to note that Descartes was not the first philosopher to propose the ontological argument. Descartes’ argument stems from St. Anselm of the eleventh century, who proposed the earliest version in his book, the Proslogion. Anselm’s argument was based on his description of God as ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived.’ Before analyzing the ontological argument that Descartes presents, however, one must understand what Descartes means by ‘God,’ and how the ontological argument is considered a priori. God, to Descartes, is “a substance that is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, which created myself and anything else that may exist,” much similar to Anselm’s own consideration of ‘God’ (Descartes 14). The term a priori applies to all ontological arguments, and simply refers to deductive reasoning. The reasoning for the ontological argument was simply inferred from Descartes’ self-evident propositions. With Descartes’ definition of God, we can then discern his argument from the text:
1) Descartes finds in himself the idea of a supremely perfect being exists.
2) Descartes perceives necessary existence as a perfection and that it is inherent of God.
3) Therefore, God exists.
We must dive deeper into the simplicity of this argument to truly understand Descartes’ intentional reading. This argument relies on three premises:
1) God as the only supremely perfect being.
2) The notion that we can conceive this supremely perfect being.
3) Conceiving this idea as a reality puts it in existence.
Let us consider these premises separately. The first premise addresses the idea that there is no other supremely perfect being other than God that we can conceive. To Descartes, God is eternal, infinite, unchangeable, omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of everything that exists – the height of a supremely perfect being. However, is God the only perfect being that we can conceive, or that actually is? This leaves for ambiguity of translation of the ontological argument. The second premise relies on ‘existence’ as a perfection. Because Descartes reveres God as the supremely perfect being, one who born him into existence, the necessary existence of God is perfection. If God, the first being who Descartes writes is omnipotent, infinite, unchangeable, etc. first contained ‘existence,’ this necessary existence is just another quality that God contains, a perfection. The third premise addresses that God is an idea within Descartes, just as the ideas of shapes and numbers, that the nature of God is in existence, and because of this, he must exist. Descartes writes in Meditations that he can perceive the idea of a three-sided shape in his mind, therefore it must exist – and uses the same knowledge with the idea of God. Descartes can conceive God; therefore, God must exist. After the expansion of these premises, we can now reiterate and shorten Descartes argument alternatively into: The idea of God contains the idea of necessary existence and therefore, God must exist.
Now consider the implications of Descartes argument. Descartes is implying that our existence is contingent upon something else, but God’s existence is necessary. This further implies that the concept of existence is inseparable from the concept of God. This is where I disagree. To Descartes, things contain ‘existence’ as a property, or a perfection that something has. Descartes also gives the conjecture that because we can conceive things, they exist. Descartes also be seems to imply that human existence is imperfect existence, because no human can reach supreme perfection. Although it is impossible to address every facet and implication of the ontological argument, I will examine why existence is not a property, and that conception does not presuppose existence.
The Objection
Descartes ontological argument contains the implication that the concept of existence is inseparable from the concept of God. This provides that Descartes believes ‘existence’ as an inherent property of ‘things.’ However, as Immanuel Kant, 18th century German philosopher objects, existence is not a property, but a presupposition to properties. If I described a dog – golden fur, dark eyes, and a small body – these are properties that the dog contains, but if I had also said that the dog exists, these things would seem very separate. The dog that I can perceive in my mind holds the same as a dog that exists in reality, so ‘existence’ is not a property that distinguishes it from mind to reality. Perhaps rather than saying that God has a necessary existence, one could say that it is necessarily true that God exists.
Let us discuss Descartes’ assumption that conceiving an idea automatically assumes existence. Suppose that we believe in the idea of God that Descartes holds. Descartes himself agrees that there are boundaries that the human mind contains because it is imperfect, or unlike God. God, as the only supremely perfect being, has omniscience, or all-knowing power. Can God not conceive things that we cannot conceive because he is omniscient? The imperfect human is limited in his conceptions of reality in comparison to God, which provides little for the human to conceptualize as a reality. However, this does not mean that there are conceptualizations that we cannot formulate that do not exist – God holds these perfect . Therefore just because the human mind is incapable of perceiving things, does not mean they do not exist.
The Response
Descartes might respond to my objections with the counter argument that if existence is a presupposition to properties, then God must have contained existence before he contained his perfect properties (eternal, unchangeable, independent, etc.). Which means even though God did not contain existence as a property, God did contain it as a presupposition, still making existence ‘necessary,’ and therefore ‘perfect’ in the eyes of Descartes, since the supremely perfect being contained it first. Therefore, Descartes argument would still follow: my idea of God is the idea of supremely perfect being, existence is a perfection, therefore, God must exist.
Descartes might also respond to the objection that conceiving ideas does not assume existence by asserting that only possible things can be conceived, and that God would only allow possible things to exist. Descartes may claim that the things that we cannot conceive, but God can are perfect. However, God would not allow for perfect things to be conceived by humans because he is the only perfect being. Perfect things are not possible to conceive for imperfect minds; therefore, they cannot exist.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I have argued that existence is not a property or perfection that something possesses, but a presupposition to the properties it will possess once it is born into existence. I have also argued against Descartes’ claim that because one can conceive something in one’s mind, it exists, and hence that perhaps even Descartes’ complex ontological argument for the existence of God fails.