In René Descartes’s Meditations On First Philosophy, the question is raised that if God is perfect, and he is our creator, then why are we imperfect? Why do we err? He addresses this question in “Meditation Four” with three ‘blanket’ answers and a final answer. These ‘blanket’ answers are the initial responses to the proposed question that humans find comfort in. They are attempts at explaining the reasons behind a painful experience. Descartes’s ‘blanket’ answers are that errors stem from ignorance, from parts of a whole, and from diversity. Despite proposing these, he does not stop at them and proposes an ultimate answer to his question that does not take away from the perfection of God. Descartes argues that since human will extends past the extent of human intellect, we err because we as humans act on the unlimited will that God gave us without proper knowledge. This way, the cause of err is not God, but it is ourselves. Overall, I understand where Descartes attempts to argue for God’s perfection despite our imperfection, but I still find hole’s in his argument and places where he fails to prove that God still wills the best, even though humans err.
In pondering the major question of “Meditation Four,” Descartes arrives at three initial answers: from ignorance, form parts of a whole, and from diversity. Descartes first recognizes that since God is the most perfect and humans are intermediate between perfection and nothingness, it is possible for God to “make innumerable things whose causes escape [human knowledge]” (55). That being said, Descartes comes to a possible answer stating that the reason and/or purpose behind human error may be something that humans are just kept ignorant to. Next, Descartes recognizes that a work of God “might rightfully appear very imperfect if it were all by itself, and yet be most perfect, to the extent that it has the status of a part in the universe” (56). This means that, while humans may view themselves as individually imperfect and full of error, when humans are seen as a part of the whole universe, we may hold the status of perfection. Finally, Descartes arrives at his final ‘blanket’ response to his main question of “Meditation Four.” This final ‘blanket’ response states that humans err because the world relies on creations that “are not immune to error, while others are” (61). While humans have the ability to err, some of God’s other creations may not because “it may somehow be a greater perfection in the universe” if this diversity exists (61). This means that error may be a necessity for the overall perfection of God’s creation of the universe. While Descartes recognizes these initial responses, he does not rely on them to conclude his argument for God’s perfection.
Unsatisfied in stopping there, Descartes comes to a different conclusion. This conclusion is that error is the result of the “simultaneous concurrence of two causes: intellect and will” (56). Descartes states that God gave humans a will that is “limited by no boundaries whatsoever” (57), but since humans are intermediate beings between perfection and nothingness, they do not have access to immediate total knowledge or intellect. Instead, the intellect that a human does not have can be obtained, but it is first only existent in ignorance. In simple terms, Descartes is trying to conclude that since human will is unlimited and human intellect is limited, human error occurs when will is acted upon without proper knowledge. So since will extends to things that humans do not understand, humans can easily abuse their unlimited will by acting on these things that they do not understand. This conclusion takes away from an argument against God’s perfection. Since intellect is based on perception, that means it is based on the individual. This takes the fault away from God and leaves the cause of mistakes solely on a human’s abuse of unlimited will. According to Descartes, God cannot be blamed for letting humans be capable of error because “it is of the essence of a created intellect to be finite” (60), “the more ample the will is, the more [humans] ought to thank [God]” (60), “it is an imperfection in [humans] that [they] do not use [their] freedom well” (61), if intellect were to have been made more powerful for humans the universe may not “be a greater perfection…as a whole” (61), and human error has a solution. This solution is indifference. Descartes proposes that humans can avoid error if they “hold off from making a judgement when [they] do not perceive what is true with sufficient clarity” (59). In this way, mistakes can be sidestepped as long as humans act indifferent to the parts of will that they do not understand until they can incorporate it into their individual intellect. Through this conclusion, it can be gathered that God still wills what is best because the cause of error relies on humans and not God. Also, with proper action upon unlimited will, humans can avoid human error and achieve a status closer to the perfection of what was intended by their creator.
While I admire Descartes’s attempt at a difficult argument in his Meditations On First Philosophy, I feel that he fails to maintain the perfection of God’s will throughout the explanation of human error. He seems to cover all holes that can be found in his argument, but he doesn’t cover them all the way. If God is perfect, why didn’t God provide humans with infinite amounts of everything, including intellect? While Descartes mentions that the universe may not function as a whole without this diversity of intellect, he provides no reason for this to be found as ‘true;’ therefore, using his own philosophy of hyperbolic doubt, his argument should be discredited because I, and other readers, can doubt it. In addition, by even considering that God could have given us greater intellect, Descartes goes against his own philosophy of intellect being in the control of the human due to perception. If God could give us greater intellect, then not giving us more could cause error. This would leave God as the cause for human error. In many ways, Descartes’s attempt to argue for God’s perfect will fails to consider all aspects of his own methods of thought. His rebuttals to potential arguments do not follow a logic that cannot be argued because they can be doubted. I doubt Descartes’s argument through my clear and distinct intellect that is irrefutable by the will. In this way, what is irrefutable by the will for each individual is unknown over the mass of all humans, so how could a single human come to find universal truth through individual intellect?
Overall, Descartes tries to reason for God’s innocence in human error by arguing from ignorance, holism, and diversity. He eventually comes to the conclusion that God didn’t make humans specifically imperfect, but he gave humans unlimited will and limited knowledge because we are created and, therefore, finite beings. Since humans have limited knowledge, using the will past the extent of intellect creates human errors and imperfections. Descartes argues that since these errors can be avoided through individual human action, they are at the hands of humans and not God. Although I believe Descartes makes a very convincing argument, I find that there are areas of his argument that fail to adhere to the whole of his philosophy and the logic of reality.