Topic: Present both the argument from Descartes and the criticism from Hobbes. Evaluate the interaction. Is the critic's objection a good philosophical objection? Should Descartes have believed in God's existence? What does the answer mean for the rest? May anyone be justified in believing in God’s existence?
Descartes presents simple but very powerful ontological arguments on the existence of God. His approach to philosophy has been misunderstood by many philosophers due to its simplistic nature. According to Descartes, the existence of God is premised on the very idea of a supreme and perfect being (Rocha, 2015). His main ontological arguments on this subject are found in the Third Meditation. Descartes’s arguments are premised on two canons of his philosophical approach: “The doctrine of clear and distinct perception and the theory of innate ideas” (Mori, 2012; Nolan, 2021).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Hobbes’ philosophical approach to scientific knowledge is founded on five tenets. First, external forces produce motion which is then propagated into the human body through various media(Adams, 2014). Secondly, these motions create images into the human body and can rebound outward from the brain. Thirdly, the cognitive ability of the brain analyzes these images and resolves them – breaking images from complex to simple. Fourth, the human body understands and is aware of these simple conceptions which arise from analysis. Finally, the cognitive strength composes these simple conceptions (images) together to build a complex conception
Descartes argues that, if a thought can produce an idea of something, then what is perceived to belong to the idea, actually belongs to it and exists. It is on this basis that the existence of God can be proven from thoughts. The thought of the existence of a perfect supreme being can be equated to the idea of perceiving a shape or object. As such, the existence of God can be proven. His argument is as below;
1 – What the human body perceives or produces through ideas, exists.
2 – The human brain perceives the idea of the existence of God.
3 – therefore, God exists.
Number 3 follows from the first and second premises. The arguments are valid because when we perceive a car, the image of the actual car reflects in our minds. As such, the conclusion is true because it builds from true premises.
Hobbes objects this argument by asserting that the term idea can only be applied to corporeal objects. Ideas should be defined by images of real things. For instance, when the mind thinks about a man, the image that comes has a definite shape (Descartes, 2010). However, when we think about an angel, the image keeps fluctuating from a flame to a baby with wings. There is no distinct image of an angel and therefore an angel is not an idea (Descartes, 2010). Similarly, there is no particular image of God and therefore God is not an idea. Hobbes further asserts that an idea must have a cause. A blind man who has approached fire and felt hot understands that there exists something hot called fire. The blind man can conclude that fire exists.
Descartes further argues that an idea is something that can be perceived by the mind. For instance, when you perceive fear, then you become afraid. He maintains that this claim is self-evident in expanding the definition of an idea beyond the corporeal world. According to Descartes, the term idea is a standard philosophical term used to describe the various kinds of perceptions, corporeal or abstract (Shapiro, 2012). Therefore, there is no better philosophical term and thus, the premises of the ontological arguments should satisfy the existence of God.
Hobbes dismisses the argument by Descartes that fear is not corporeal yet it can be perceived in the mind. Ideally, there is more to fear, denial, affirmation, or willingness. All these perceptions are tied to a particular thing whose image is real (Springborg, 2012). When someone fears, or wills, there is something more attached to the will or fear. Being afraid can be caused by seeing a lion, hence the thought of fight or flight. Besides, affirmation or denial ideas cannot exist in isolation of language and names. Also, thoughts can be shared between man and animals. When we say someone is running, our thought is similar to that of seeing a dog running after the master. The origin of an idea is important and this disparages the idea of God. Where does the idea of God come from, because it cannot be experienced from senses? (Descartes, 2010). The idea of the sun, moon and stars can be proven astronomically. Whether we are determining its size by observing or through reasoning, the first principle is that it exists.
Hobbes contends that the idea of God is anything that did not originate from within (Descartes 2010). And by God, the understanding is that of a substance that is infinite, independent, powerful and the creator of everything that exists. Hobbes agrees the idea of the of God cannot be imagined. The existence of God is affirmed by his attributes such as infinite, creator of all that exists and supremely powerful.
Descartes rebuttes Hobbes by concluding that the idea of God definitely exists. We may not have an idea of the soul but we always refer to it (Oppy, 2010). There is no definite image of the soul in the corporeal imagination but nonetheless, we have an idea of the soul.The objections by Hobbes form good philosophical criticism. Based on his tenets of philosophy, Hobbes applies a scientific approach in explaining the concept of an idea. His argument that an idea must conform to a corporeal existence is valid. This definition of an idea has succeeded in explaining how the human body perceives various things. Descartes should have believed in God because, despite the objections by Hobbes, both philosophers agree on the existence of God. But the premises building to the conclusion of the existence of God is what differs. Descartes is firm in his ontological arguments that the idea of God comes from within us and goes ahead to provide philosophical evidence which Hobbes rejects. Hobbes on the other hand attempts to scientifically object to the very idea being advanced by Descartes. Eventually, Hobbes posits that we can only prove the existence of God not from within but from the attributes which describe God. Indeed, the idea of God is beyond imagination.
Descartes agreeing on the existence of God is in order because his critic contends to this conclusion, but their differences are pronounced in their premises. Descartes's belief in the existence of God provides the rest of us with a piece of significant evidence to believe in the existence too. Descartes concludes by expressing his dissatisfaction with Hobbes’s arguments. They differ in the premises of the arguments but the conclusions augur well and hence the rest of us have no evidence to contradict the existence of God. Therefore, everyone is justified into believing in the existence of God.
The philosophical arguments advanced by Descartes and Hobbes explain the logic behind ontological conclusions. The premises fronted by Descartes firmly support the existence of God. Hobbes's scientific approach to philosophical arguments objects the foundation of the existence of God as concluded by Descartes. In philosophy, logical arguments may not always yield the same conclusions depending on the philosopher advancing them.
References
Adams, M. P. (2014). The Wax and the Mechanical Mind: Reexamining Hobbes ’s Objections to Descartes ’s Meditations. British Journal for the History of Philosophy , 1-24.
Descartes, R. (2010). Objections to the Meditations and Descartes’s Replies. Transl. J. Bennett (http://www. earlymoderntexts. com/pdfs/descartes1642_3. pdf) .
Mori, G. (2012). Hobbes, Descartes, and ideas: A secret debate. Journal of the History of Philosophy , 50 (2), 197-212.
Nolan, Lawrence, "Descartes’ Ontological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/descartes-ontological/
Oppy, G. (2010). The ontological argument from Descartes to Hegel. Journal of the History of Philosophy , 48 (2), 243-245.
Rocha, E. (2015) Innate Ideas and the idea of God in Descartes’s Fifth Meditation. Cahiers du Séminaire québécois en philosophie moderne , 46.
Shapiro, L. (2012). Objective Being and “Ofness” in Descartes. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 84 (2), 378-418.
Springborg, P. (2012). Hobbes's challenge to Descartes, Bramhall and Boyle: a corporeal God. British Journal for the History of Philosophy , 20 (5), 903-934.
