1. Descartes’ Meditations Fall 2012 Dr. David Frost Instructor of Philosophy University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point

2. The Goals of the Meditations What are the objectives or goals of the Meditations? To establish all of human knowledge on firm foundations. To have the reader go through these meditative exercises herself.

3. The Cartesian Circle Objection “Descartes first argues from clearly and distinctly perceived premises to the conclusion that a non-deceiving God exists; he then argues from the premise that a non-deceiving God exists to the conclusion that what is clearly and distinctly perceived is true.” “The worry is that he presupposes the C&D Rule in the effort to prove the C&D Rule.” “Evidently, this way of reading Descartes’ argument has pedagogical appeal, for it is ubiquitously taught (outside of Descartes scholarship) despite the absence of any textual merit.”

4. Descartes’ Actual Argument Descartes’ argument recapitulates the Theodicy or the Problem of Evil. Theodicy 1.If there is evil in the world then there is no perfect God. 2.There is evil in the world. 3.Therefore, there is no perfect God.

5. Descartes’ Actual Argument 1.If there is evil in the world then there is no perfect God. 2.There is evil in the world. 3.Therefore, there is no perfect God. With Q=there is not perfect God and P=there is evil, this takes the form of P -> Q, P, Therefore, Q.

6. Descartes’ Actual Argument But one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens. So you can do a Moorean shift. ~Q, P -> Q, Therefore ~P. Or, There is a perfect God If there is evil in the world, then there is no perfect God. Therefore there is no evil in the world.

7. Descartes’ Actual Argument Here’s how Descartes’ argument actually works, according to Newman, with minor changes. 1.There is judgment error about what I clearly and distinctly perceive. 2.If there is judgment error about what I clearly and distinctly perceive, then I am not a creature of a non-deceiving God. 3.Therefore, I am not a creature of a non-deceiving God.

8. Descartes’ Actual Argument But he can flip things in a way similar to the Moorean shift. 1.I am a creature of a perfect God. 2.If I am a creature of a perfect God, then I am not in error about what I clearly and distinctly perceive. 3.Therefore, I am not in error about what I clearly and distinctly perceive.

9. Descartes’ Actual Argument In order to support premise 2 we need to argue for the following auxiliary hypotheses. Judgment is the will plus intellect Some judgment is free CDPs compel the will, and this is by God’s design Free error is not chalked up to God Error in CDPs is chalked up to God

10. Descartes’ Actual Argument Newman says, for Descartes: “Since, on occasions of clarity and distinctness, my assent arises from the cognitive nature that God gave me, God would be blamable if those judgments resulted in error. Therefore, they are not in error; indeed they could not be,” (Newman).

11. Thank you