Rene Descartes Meditations On First Philosophy

914 Words4 Pages
In Rene Descartes’ excerpt, Meditations on First Philosophy, he declares, “It is beyond question that I shall reach the truth if I think hard enough about the things that I perfectly understand, keeping them separate from all the other matters in which my thoughts are more confused and obscure” (§104). In Descartes statement, what is meant by his definition of the “perfect?” According to the standard interpretation, perfect is having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be. Nevertheless, perfect has different competing interpretations. Perfect could be expressed as complete, flawless, or accurate. Hence, illuminating different denotations of Descartes’ meaning of perfect could…show more content…
To affirm this interpretation, Descartes elucidates, “Whenever I know that I doubt something or want something, I understand that I lack something and am therefore not wholly perfect. How could I grasp this unless I had an idea of a perfect being, which enabled me to recognize my own defects by comparison” (§66)? In this context, Descartes refers to “perfect” as being without sin or flawless. Also, he shows how when he longs for something more or his own desires rather than seeking God, he feels sinful. In addition to Descartes expressing his dependency on the Lord, he also makes an inquiry about his nature vs. God’s nature. When he made this inquiry, he shows how God is his guidance and the standard to which he should live his life. For example, the reason why a teacher provides an answer key to students is to show students their “own defects by comparison” to the right answers, so that they will not make that mistake again. Likewise, Descartes shows how God is his standard that he seeks for correction. From these examples, we can see how perfect is interpreted and understood from a flawless…show more content…
To affirm this interpretation, Descartes states, “Something that I thought I saw with my eyes, therefore, was really grasped solely by my mind’s faculty of judgment. However, someone who wants to know more than the common crowd should be ashamed to base his doubts on ordinary ways of talking. Let us push ahead, then, and ask: When was my perception of the wax’s nature more perfect and clear” (§33)? In this context, we can see how perfect can be interpreted as accurate. Specifically, Descartes expresses to his audience that reality is real and if we see something “with our own eyes”, then it must exist. In addition, he questions the audience by asking them, “When was my perception of the wax’s nature more perfect (accurate) and clear?,” showing how no matter the form or the flexibility of the wax, it still remains wax. To further understand Descartes’ wax argument, let’s take an ice cube for example. An ice cube, weather in liquid or solid form, is considered water. Likewise, according to Descartes argument, wax is still considered wax regardless of the form it takes. What might be Descartes be saying? Descartes tells his audience the only thing, therefore, which gives physical objects reality is the understanding that the mind has of them. As a result, this shows how our minds can perfectly, or for another interpretation, accurately perceive what we
Open Document