2 Questions about Descartes Evil Genius...

S

sevenblu

feeling blu
Registered Senior Member
1: If God exists, what reason does He have to create the Evil Genius?
2: Why is the Genius imperfect if a Perfect God created him?
 
Yer two questions rely on the assumption that God exists. But I don't wanna get too much into that.
 
invert, the purpose of Descartes' meditations is not to prove the existence of God, but rather to build a reliable theory of knowledge. In fact, Descartes even says that, because he has such cause to doubt what he believes to be true, anything he would say in the that meditation concerning God would be fanciful. Therefore, in his meditations, he wants to set all of his beliefs aside, assume that they aren't true until he has properly set up the most basic truths that cannot be doubted, and from there examine each of his beliefs one after the other to discover if they are true or not. The very first truth of which he determines to be: "I think, therefore I am." In other words, I am thinking, therefore I know I exist.

He poses the possibility of an evil genius who is deceiving him about the world because he knows that there have been times when he had been deceived about what he believed to be true. Therefore, he set up the evil genius scenario as a stage in which to set himself so as to discover what the first truth might be.

The thought experiment goes like this. If there is an evil genius who, for whatever reasons, is deceiving me about the world around me, can he possibly be deceiving me about everything I believe to be true? Can this evil genius even deceive me about my own existence? The answer must be no. Why? Because, if I do exist, then I am not being decieved about it, because I do believe that I exist. If I don't exist, then the evil genius has no one to deceive. Could the evil genius be deceiving me about my own thoughts? If I am thinking, then he is not deceiving me, because I believe that I am thinking. If I am not thinking, then there is no thought to be deceived. Hence, because I believe that I am thinking, and belief is attached to thought, and I cannot be deceived about it, I must be thinking. Furthermore, if I am thinking, then I, at least am a thinking thing that MUST exist.

In the Meditation, Descartes does not propose that God created the evil genius. In fact, prior to setting up the evil genius for the thought experiment, he sets aside the notion God for the time being, until he can rightly justify a belief in God.
 
the purpose of Descartes' meditations is not to prove the existence of God, but rather to build a reliable theory of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Oh? Really? I don't suppose you've made it through all of them then?
 
beyondspace and time, you make a good point. But in any thought experiment certain limitations must be set. And Cartesian Logic will not allow for the presupposition that NO God exists -- this is one of the problems with his epistomology. By stating that there is a Evil Genius, Descartes is not ruling out the idea of God, but rather placing his demon between God and man. It would be logically impossible for the Evil Genius to exist without God, according to Descartes:

He asserts:

I will suppose, then, not that Deity, who is sovereignly good and the fountain of truth, but that some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me; I will suppose that the sky, the air, the earth, colors, figures, sounds, and all external things, are nothing better than the illusions of dreams, by means of which this being has laid snares for my credulity; I will consider myself as without hands, eyes, flesh, blood, or any of the senses, and as falsely believing that I am possessed of these; I will continue resolutely fixed in this belief, and if indeed by this means it be not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of truth, I shall at least do what is in my power, viz., [ suspend my judgment ], and guard with settled purpose against giving my assent to what is false, and being imposed upon by this deceiver, whatever be his power and artifice.
Click to expand...


and later:

Nor can it be said that this idea of God is perhaps materially false and so could have come from nothing… On the contrary, it is utterly clear and distinct, and contains in itself more objective reality than any other idea; hence there is no idea, which is in itself truer or less liable to be suspected of falsehood. This idea of a supremely perfect and infinite being is, I say, true to the highest degree; for although perhaps one may imagine that such a being does not exist, it cannot be supposed that the idea of such a being represents something unreal… The idea is, moreover, utterly clear and distinct; for whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive as being real and true, and implying any perfection, is wholly contained in it. It does not matter that I do not grasp the infinite, or that there are countless other attributes to God which I cannot in any way grasp, and perhaps cannot even reach in my thought; for it is in the nature of the infinite not to be grasped by a finite being like myself. It is enough that I understand the infinite, and that I judge that all the attributes which I clearly perceive and know to imply some perfection – and perhaps countless others of which I am ignorant – are present in god either formally or eminently. This is enough to make the idea that I have of God the truest and most clear and distinct of all my ideas.
Click to expand...

If we rationalize both statements, it becomes possible for Descartes God to exist coside the Evil Genius, such as the Gnostic concept of the Demuirge...

His thought experiment can place three entities in a sort of tier system that looks something like this.

GOD
Evil Genius
Man [or MIND]

This third tier – that of the Mind – cannot exist without the Evil Genius [at least it cannot exist in what it perceives as reality]. This relationship between Mind and the Evil Genius mimics the relationship between the Evil Genius and God. The Evil Genius cannot exist in God’s reality without the existence of God. The Mind cannot exist in the Evil Genius’s reality without the existence of the Evil Genius. These arguments can be expressed:

P1: Mind is a collection of thoughts and experiences.
P2: The Evil Genius controls all thoughts and experiences.
C: The Evil Genius controls Mind.

P1: Mind is a collection of thoughts and experiences.
P2: Thoughts and experiences cannot exist without the Evil Genius.
C: The mind cannot exist without the Evil Genius.

---------

Regardless of the logical analysis of Descartes Meditation, if it is possible to accept the idea of the Evil Genius as a middle man between God and man then we revert back to the original questions...

1: If God exists, what reason does He have to create the Evil Genius?
2: Why is the Genius imperfect if a Perfect God created him?

----------

Yet even if we do not accept the arguement, it can be expressed in simpler terms. Using Okham's razor, we can cut out the Demon all together and beg the questions:

1: If God exists, what reason does He have to create Man?
2: Why is Man imperfect if a Perfect God created him?
 
Actually, Descartes’ original version of the Evil Genius dilemma had God himself as the one who fools you. He changed it at the last minute because he was worried about pissing people off by suggesting that God might trick people.

His purpose was to attempt to build up a body of knowledge without having to rely on any sort of observation. Eventually, as he worked what he could deduce without having to rely on observations, he got around to proving that a God must exist.
 
Wait wait wait.....


Descartes idea was to see if there was a deceiver who would trick him to perceive things in ways that they were not. The Deceiver Hypothesis (the name of this), coupled with the Dream Hypothesis would create Universal Doubt, which was the state which Descartes needed to meditate.

He later proves, in meditation 3, that God cannot be a deceiver because God is necessarily a perfect being, and deceiving is not a perfection.
 
Nasor said:
Actually, Descartes’ original version of the Evil Genius dilemma had God himself as the one who fools you. He changed it at the last minute because he was worried about pissing people off by suggesting that God might trick people.

His purpose was to attempt to build up a body of knowledge without having to rely on any sort of observation. Eventually, as he worked what he could deduce without having to rely on observations, he got around to proving that a God must exist.
Click to expand...

Please tell me where you got this info.
 
I recall it from a philosophy class that I took a few years ago. Sorry, I don’t have the time or inclination to dredge up a reference. I could be wrong.
 
i need help understanding please.

In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes imagines the possibility that he isbeing deceived by an evil genius.

How can the scenario imagined by Descartes be used toargue for the skeptical conclusion that we are not justified in believing that there arematerial objects external to our minds?

What can be said in favor of the various premisesinvolved in this argument?

:shrug:
 
beyondtimeandspace said:
invert, the purpose of Descartes' meditations is not to prove the existence of God, but rather to build a reliable theory of knowledge. In fact, Descartes even says that, because he has such cause to doubt what he believes to be true, anything he would say in the that meditation concerning God would be fanciful. Therefore, in his meditations, he wants to set all of his beliefs aside, assume that they aren't true until he has properly set up the most basic truths that cannot be doubted, and from there examine each of his beliefs one after the other to discover if they are true or not. The very first truth of which he determines to be: "I think, therefore I am." In other words, I am thinking, therefore I know I exist.

He poses the possibility of an evil genius who is deceiving him about the world because he knows that there have been times when he had been deceived about what he believed to be true. Therefore, he set up the evil genius scenario as a stage in which to set himself so as to discover what the first truth might be.

The thought experiment goes like this. If there is an evil genius who, for whatever reasons, is deceiving me about the world around me, can he possibly be deceiving me about everything I believe to be true? Can this evil genius even deceive me about my own existence? The answer must be no. Why? Because, if I do exist, then I am not being decieved about it, because I do believe that I exist. If I don't exist, then the evil genius has no one to deceive. Could the evil genius be deceiving me about my own thoughts? If I am thinking, then he is not deceiving me, because I believe that I am thinking. If I am not thinking, then there is no thought to be deceived. Hence, because I believe that I am thinking, and belief is attached to thought, and I cannot be deceived about it, I must be thinking. Furthermore, if I am thinking, then I, at least am a thinking thing that MUST exist.

In the Meditation, Descartes does not propose that God created the evil genius. In fact, prior to setting up the evil genius for the thought experiment, he sets aside the notion God for the time being, until he can rightly justify a belief in God.
Click to expand...
Agreed
Nasor said:
Actually, Descartes’ original version of the Evil Genius dilemma had God himself as the one who fools you. He changed it at the last minute because he was worried about pissing people off by suggesting that God might trick people.

His purpose was to attempt to build up a body of knowledge without having to rely on any sort of observation. Eventually, as he worked what he could deduce without having to rely on observations, he got around to proving that a God must exist.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top