On Descartes

Premodernity, modernity, and postmodernity all refer to the major divisions within the history of philosophy. Each period learned from what came before, challenged the ideas (keeping some), and formulated new beliefs. Various philosophers within each time period are credited for the reformulation of ideas and the insightful truths that has brought the discipline of philosophy to where it is today.

It has been said, that in order to understand where one is going, an understanding from where one came is necessary; so it is with philosophy. An understanding of the troubles and accomplishments of each period will lend to a better understanding of where one finds themselves today. Popular philosophers are influenced by philosophers of old, and the philosophies they propagate can be analyzed by a careful historical search of how each one has panned in the past. As the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Dangerous philosophies have been lived out in the past, and people have lost their lives because of it. A study in the history of philosophy will inform how to truly make progress, as opposed to simply making a change.

People in the twenty first century find themselves in what is commonly agreed up as a postmodern period. In order to fully comprehend postmodernity and the significance of its characteristics, as study of the modern period is in order. It is the aim of this essay to do just that. One of the most prominent philosophers of the modern period was Rene Descartes. His influences, convictions, and conclusions are lend to a better understanding of the modern period. This essay will examine the modern period, Descartes, and the philosophies he espoused; both his epistemology and his metaphysical reflections will be examined.

The Modern Period

The modern period refers to the time period between 1600-1950. Following on the heels of the premodern period, which asserted that metaphysics was first philosophy, the modern period reasserted the first philosophy as epistemology. This is why we can infer from Descartes’ Meditations of First Philosophy that he is reflecting upon epistemology.

Philosophers in the modern period began to move away from the premodern concept of the correspondence theory of truth to the coherence theory of truth. While premodern philosophers had understood truth as was corresponds to reality, the notion of truth began to be accepted by modern philosophers as whatever results from a coherent system of beliefs. Though Descartes is considered a modern philosopher, this is one place that he is different. He was influenced by the modern rejection of esteeming reason above all else, however, he used reason as a means to discover reality and therefore to discover truth. This is the essence of the correspondence theory of truth: reality is reveals what is true.

Other modern philosophers esteemed reason as well, but it was done in a different way. Reason and science were valued above all else, and a rejection of the supernatural is what resulted. The very existence of God was in doubt. Many modern philosophers propagated that science was said to be the cause of everything, but Descartes used reason to show that this was not the case. In fact, he reasoned to God being the source of everything, information what are now referred to as both the Kalam Cosmological argument and the Ontological argument for the existence of God (more on this will follow below).

It may seem thus far, that Descartes did not properly belong in the modern period. Indeed, he had many differences than this philosophers of his day. However, one of the defining characteristics of the modern period was the faith in autonomous reason, and Descartes was a master of using reason. Many moderns only allowed for the use of deduction, that is, the reasoning method that guaranteed certainty, in discovering knowledge. Descartes took this concept to a whole new level, applying deduction to matters that had never been analyzed in such a way. As the father of Foundationalism, he advised that we should "always preserve in our thoughts the order necessary for the deduction of one truth from another."

Descartes’ philosophy

In 1596, on the cusp of the modern period, Rene Descartes was born in France. Influenced by scientist and philosopher Isaac Beeckman, he began his own work "meditating on the disunity and uncertainty of his knowledge." In both the areas of epistemology and metaphysics Descartes became very influential. He proceeded both slowly and thoughtfully in his philosophising, and advised his readers to do so as well. He begins his Meditations  with an exhortation to his readers: "I do not advise anyone to read these things except those who have both the ability and the desire to meditate seriously with me, and to withdraw their minds from the senses as well as from all prejudices."

  Descartes firmly believed that "two issues, namely, God and the soul- are chief among those that ought to be demonstrated with the aid of philosophy rather than religion." Through his various writings he strove to do just that, even though he was a religious man himself. Because of this, part of his left lasting impression, both in the areas of epistemology and metaphysics, has to do with equipped the believer with using philosophy as common ground to reach the unbeliever. Both fields of epistemology and metaphysics will be examined separately, in addition to how Descartes used both of these disciplines to formulate arguments for the existence of God.

Epistemology

In his Meditations, specifically one and two, Descartes pens his reflections with respect to the field of epistemology. Epistemology refers to the study of knowledge, which has been defined as justified true belief. One of the characteristics of the modern period was the stronger criteria for justification that it set forth than the premodern period. All three components of knowledge were to be equally stressed, whereas previously belief had held more weight than the need for justification.

Descartes esteemed reasons to be the primary means of justification from which knowledge would result. He believed that ethical principles could be understood by reasons, and that it was the most important thing one needed to get to God. Judging aright and distinguishing truth from error, were what he referred to as reason, or simply good sense.

What Descartes was proposing was no easy task. A life committed to the reasonable pursuit of knowledged "demand[ed] a mind free from prejudices." In order to do this, he developed what was know been referred to as a hermeneutic of doubt, that is, he began by doubting everything he had previously believed in order to prevent him from believing anything unjustifiedly. He noted that "the inexperienced more frequently err on the side of assenting to what is false, wanting as they do to give the appearance of understanding it, than on the side of denying what is true." In light of his observation, he set forth to "never to accept anything for true which [he] did not clearly know to be such.” What it more, anything he found which admitted the slightest doubt, he decided to set aside just as if he had found it to be wholly false.”

After everything had been doubted on principle, Descartes meditated on whether or not there was anything which did not actually admit any doubt. He realized, that though he could theoretically be mistaken about many things, there was at least one thing which he could not be mistaken about. This truth, was his very existence. He realized that though he could be deceived about many things, he could not be deceived about the fact that he was self-consciously aware. He stated that "after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." Descartes famous line, I think therefore I am, came to be known as The Cogito, and refers to this truth deduced from reason alone.

After his existence could not longer be doubted, Descartes began reasoning to other truths, based on his initial conclusion. This manner of expanding his knowledge reflects what he came to propose as his theory of knowledge. He was the father of foundationalism, the theory which proposes that certain beliefs are reasoned to from other more basic beliefs. These basic beliefs can properly be assumed, as it would be impossible to be wrong about the beliefs in this particular category. Descartes would place his own existence in the category of properly basic beliefs, and reason from this to other beliefs. The structure could either end up looking like a pyramid or a tree, if it were to be diagrammed on paper.

Foundationalism can be broken into strong, moderate, or weak foundationalism, and Descartes was indeed a strong foundationalist. This position asserted that "the knower has a responsibility to not believe something unless a high degree of certainty can be attained." Based on the strength of the theory, he believed that it would be "impossible for us to doubt any further those things that we later discover to be true through his method. Many contemporary philosophers today subscribe to his theory of knowledge, though are hesitant to be as strong of a foundationalist as he was. Rather, many foundationalist fall into the moderate category.

Metaphysics

Descartes proposed a type of dualism of the mind and body, which came to be known as Cartesian dualism. This refers to the philosophy of the mind, and is a sub-discipline of metaphysics. Cartesian dualism espouses the idea that the mind and the material body are separate, but yet connected. By mind, he meant the "thinking substances which are nonspatial, mental, and private," and by material bodies he meant the  "extended substances which are spatial, have material properties, and are public."

In his second meditation, Descartes explained that "A body can very easily perish, whereas the mind by its nature is immoral." Philosophers in the modern period tried to expand on his original idea, but as one might guess this proved to be difficult to make sense out of, especially outside of a Christian worldview. If the mind is, in fact, immoral, then how does one account for it after the body perishes?

Descartes’ arguments for the existence God

The conversation at this point necessarily turns to a context of religion. The concept of an immoral soul begs certain questions that can only be answered by invoking the supernatural. Descartes used this platform to launch his arguments proving the existence of God. However, in his attempt he admitted that "the existence of God ought to have for [him] at least the same degree of certainty that truths of mathematics had." He continued to use reasoning as his method for justification, and held the existence of God to the same standard as all other knowledge.

The two main arguments that Descartes contributed to were the Kalam Cosmological argument and the Ontological argument. Both draw off of general revelation, that is, the knowledge that is available to all. Both are also of a deductive nature, satisfying Descartes’ criteria for attaining knowledge. Each argument will be examined separately.

Kalam cosmological argument

The Kalam Cosmological argument is deductive in form, meaning it has the structure: If P, therefore Q. P, therefore Q. This argument refers to the ultimate cause of existence, and reasons as follows: If a thing began to exist, it had a cause. The universe began to exist, so therefore the universe had a cause.

Descartes argument does not end up being identical to the Kalam Cosmological argument, but his meditations, specifically defending premise one, have proved informative for contemporary philosophers such as William Lane Craig to expand upon the argument. In his third meditation, Descartes comments on the justification of premise one. After concluding that he cannot be wrong about the fact the he exists, he further concludes that "there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause...something cannot arise from nothing." If he exists, there exists a real cause for his existence. Descartes deduces that this cause must be eternal, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and creator of all. Indeed, this cause must be what we would call God. With this he realized that "it must be concluded that God necessarily exists."

Though he is firm in his conclusion, he continues to expand upon the idea of God, and is able to deduce additional characteristics of God. Drawing off of his own finitude, he realizes that a finite being having the idea of an infinite being can only be due to the fact that this idea proceeded from some infinite substance. He concludes that God is infinite. He also realizes that God is necessarily perfect. He writes, "since I am a thinking thing and have within me some idea of God, it must be admitted that what caused me is itself a thinking thing and possesses the idea of all the perfections which I attribute to God." So convinced of his argument, Descartes concludes by saying that

the idea that I have of God [is] the truest and most clear and distinct of all my ideas...the mere fact that I exists and have within me an idea of a most perfect being, that is, God, provides a very clear proof that God indeed exists.

Ontological argument

Ontology refers to the study of being, and the Ontological Argument refers to the argument for the existence of a greatest possible being. This argument was originally set forth by Anselm in the 11th century. It is also deductive in form, asserting that it is greater to exist in reality than to exist in merely understanding. If a greatest possible being can be conceived, it must exist in reality. A greatest possible being can be conceived, therefore a greatest possible being exists.

In his fifth meditation, Descartes pens his reflections on the ontological argument. He agrees with the first premise, questioning "what, in and of itself, is more manifest than that a supreme being exists?” He does grant, however, that merely from the fact that he thinks of God as existing, it does not necessarily follow that God therefore exists, for he knows that his thought imposes no necessity on things. However, he goes on to explain that because the characteristics of existing in reality would be inseparable from a greatest possible being, i.e. God, he concludes that he really exists.

Though the eternal nature of God was reference above in the Kalam cosmological argument (as a necessary characteristic of God in order to avoid an infinite regress of causation), Descartes was also able to conclude it via the ontological argument. He asserts at the end of his fifth meditation that he can “plainly see that it is necessary that [God] has existed from eternity and will endure for eternity."

Conclusion

Rene Descartes was a brilliant man whose contributions to philosophy, both in the fields of epistemology and metaphysics, will never be forgotten. Rather, they have served to influence philosophy for the better. His commitment to reason proved fruitful philosophically and contemporary philosophers reap the benefit from gleaning from his insight.

In spite of his keen understanding and aptitude for the disciple, Descartes remained a humble man. He would often place himself in the category of those inclined to error. He remarked in his Meditations how amazed he was at how weak and prone to error his mind was. His humility let itself to a theory of knowledge which cannot be beat. He showed how functional skepticism can serve to strengthen the foundation of knowledge for the seeker.

Though the parameters of this essay were limited to epistemology and metaphysics, he 
was also influential in the field of theology. His theological reflections stem from an unbiased foundation, something that is rare in the twenty first century. There is much to be learned 
from Descartes, and encouragement to be found that absolute certainty does exist.  

The Use of Logic in Evaluating Pro-Choice Arguments

            Logic refers to the science which evaluates arguments. Arguments can be given in either a formal or an informal sense. Typically, arguments which are given in everyday conversation, are subtle, implicit, and are therefore usually invalid. Arguments are comprised of premises and a conclusion, and the way that the premises affect the conclusions determine the arguments validity. Contrary to popular belief, or at least what can be inferred from everyday conversations, there is an objective way to assess arguments that does not appeal to any defects in the argument, i.e., fallacies.

Fallacies arise from mistakes in reasoning, that is, the way one concludes based on the given premises. Formal fallacies are determined once an argument can be reduced to only its form, whereas the determination of informal fallacies relies on familiarity with the content. Fallacies can then be broken into several categories: that of relevance, appeal to people, attack against the person, weak induction, and those that rely on presumptions or ambiguity.

Each category included several types of fallacies, and these will be presented, defined, and explained through examples, in the specific context of abortion. A heated debate of which most people have been exposed to in some form or another, but does each debater rely on proper reasoning to make their various points? It is the aim of this essay to examine the arguments on abortion, in light of the informal and formal fallacies which have been examined in Hurley’s Logic Text. This essay will not serve as a platform to make the case for the pro-life position; it will instead be limited to the arguments proposed by the pro-choice position. There is no way to reference comprehensively each argument, but I will be giving president to the most popular arguments and shedding light on the various fallacies, if there are any to be found.

Implicit Fallacies

            As was stated above, conclusions of arguments are derived by reasoning from the given premises, and this reasoning can either be faulty or appropriate. When the reasoning is faulty, there is a fallacy to be found, no matter how subtle it may be. Various arguments will be summarized, and if there are any fallacies implied they will be brought to light. Sometimes, more than one fallacy can apply to any one argument.

            One argument given in favor of the right for the mother decided to terminate her pregnancy, is given in light of the potential risk to the mother’s life. Many pro-life advocates agree with the conclusion that the pregnancy can be terminated if the mother’s life is indeed in danger, but what can be determined from various court rulings, is that the term life has been equivocated upon. Equivocation occurs when some word is used either implicitly or explicitly in two different senses. Life, indeed, is an ambiguous term which can meant in a literal sense, as in denoting a living being, or in a qualitative sense, as in a quality of life. The way in which pro-lifers use the term is in a literal sense, that is, the pregnancy risks poses a threat which would end the mother’s life. However, if this term is to be understood as in quality of life, the cases in which the mother could employ this argument would virtually be equal with the number of pregnancy cases because all pregnancies affect the mother’s quality of life.   

            Another argument which has been given in support of the mother’s choice to terminate her pregnancy rests on the fact of the burden which is placed on the mother. A hypothetical case can be given which references a financially struggling mother who does not have the resources to support another child. Though we do not need to ignore the needs of those around us, we need to recognize that this is not in fact an actual argument for why the mother should have the right to terminate her pregnancy. Rather, this is an appeal to pity, an informal fallacy which attempts to evoke pity from the audience in order to sway the acceptance of a conclusion. In addition to appeal to pity, this “argument” begs the question. It assumes that there is not a life of a child at stake. If this argument was reworded to state that a financially struggling woman could no longer support her 3-year-old and therefore chose to undue herself of this burden (i.e. terminate the life of the child), we would intuitively know that this request would be absurd and indeed morally wrong.

I purposefully use the word wrong to assert a value claim. It is not merely a bad choice for this woman to make, but it is inherently wrong. So many pro-choices try to reduce the argument to a preference: “Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one.” This is not the issue at stake. Just as much as murder is not merely a matter of preference, neither is abortion, unless one begins by begging the questions that abortion is not murder. Presuppositions made by both sides of the argument cannot go unjustified.

            Cases of rape in which pregnancy results, indeed serve as cases of extenuating circumstances which need to be examined more closely, but does that mean there is not anything which can be said as a response to those who would use cases of rape as a means to justify terminating a pregnancy? Ad hominem circumstantial has to do with attacking the opponent based on their circumstances, in order to discredit their argument. Proponents of allowing abortions based on cases of rape, deal with their opponents by way of pointing out their circumstance, either that of being a male or of having not been raped, to discredit their argument because they could never relate to the victim. Though these are tragic cases, in which all parties should be utmost compassionate, caring, and gentle with the victim, we must realize that circumstances do not always discredit arguments.

Another type of fallacy which relies on attacking the person is that of ad hominem abusive, one of which I have personally experienced in the context of this argument. My pro-choice interlocutor began verbally abusing me as an attempt to discredit my argument. This was done by accusing me of being uncompassionate, calloused, and heartless. In these instances, one must take a step back and examine the truth value of my premises. If they were in fact true, and the argument was in valid form, then these (unfair) accusations are irrelevant. What we see is also evident of the tu quoque fallacy, which is Latin for “you, too.” This is done in order to shift the burden of guilt. It plays out like this: “You think it is heartless to terminate the pregnancy? Well it is heartless of you to insist that this victim not terminate her pregnancy.”

            The right to privacy argument also begs the question, but because this fallacy has been referenced above, I will instead focus on how it uses the accident fallacy and the fallacy of the weak analogy. The right to privacy argument states that the woman has the right to privacy and therefore the right to abortion because it is a private matter. The accident fallacy is committed when a general rule is wrongly applying to atypical specific cases. Though guaranteed under the fourth amendment, citizens are to be given the right to privacy as is qualified in the Constitution. Certain interests of the state, however, do not fall into the category of what should be protect, does abortion? If the state has the duty to indeed protect its citizens, and the unborn is a citizens (though of a different location), then abortion does not fall under the category of private acts. Just as instances of abuse are not protected under the fourth amendment, even if they are done in the privacy of one’s own home, abortion should not be a protected right.

            Most analogies given in support of abortion as a right given by the fourth amendment commit the fallacy of the weak analogy. Indeed they would have to because what analogy could be employed which would give someone the right to kill in the name of privacy? If someone were to trespass, does that give me the right to kill them? Any analogy would beg the question of whether the unborn is a person or not, and therefore any analogy would commit the fallacy or the weak analogy, by asserting a conclusions that depends on an analogy that is not strong enough to support it.

            Arguments have been given based on the fact that there is a 50/50 chance that what we are dealing with, in the context of the unborn, is either simply tissue or is a living being that inherently has rights. From this premise, that there is a 50/50 chance that either of these options are correct, pro-choicers will commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance by asserting that, because we do not know what it is, we should air on the side of choice (included in this are privacy, freedom, and choice). However, it is an intuitively obvious notion that we cannot explain the known with the unknown. What is more is the state has indeed been constructed to protect the rights of its citizens and establish justice, should it not intuit that its duty is rather to err on the side of life?             

            This argument also commits the fallacy of suppressing evidence. Were all the evidence to be presented, that there is not in fact a 50/50 chance that the unborn consists of either simply tissue or a living being, the conclusion would be different. If it was acknowledged, however, that all the evidence for the personhood of the unborn points to the inherent right to life, the conclusion in fact would be opposite: Never does the right to privacy, freedom, or choice or the mother trump the lift of the unborn.

Conclusion

            Many pro-choice arguments commit various informal and formal fallacies alike. Indeed,

all of the arguments referenced above rely on fallacies to reason from their premises to their conclusions. Exposed fallacies are evidence of faulty reasoning, which implies that conclusions are not correct. Due to the fact that all of the arguments referenced above do in fact rely on fallacies which have since been exposed, the conclusions of all of these arguments are not correct. This is not to say that there are not other premises which could be offered, are that there are not other arguments out there. What it does say, is that the burden of proof is on those which are proponents of the right of the mother to terminate the pregnancy.

            The comprehensive nature of all of the arguments listed above can be reduced to show that anything short of erring on the side of life is negligent on the state’s and the individual’s part. As the burden of proof has been shown to remain on the side of the pro-choice debate, there is no reason why abortions should be permitted in the meantime.  

Bibliography

Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic. 12^th ed. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2012.           Electronic Format.

---