1. 1
The Existence of Soul, Body, and God in Descartes, Allison Caldwell
In his book, Meditations on the First Philosophy, Renee Descartes argues
his main conclusions of existence, Dualist Interactionism and his version of the
Ontological Argument. Descartes believed that humans are intrinsically souls and
not bodies. Descartes claimed that the nature of the mind is that of a
thinking, non-extended substance, whilst the nature of the body is of non-
thinking, extended substance. Dualist Interactionism refers to the belief that
souls and bodies causally interact with each other. An Ontological Argument is
an argument for the existence of an all-powerful and perfect God. Descartes
was a rationalist, meaning that he believed that knowledge is only possible if
based on absolute principles that are not derived from sense experience.
In the Descartes’ First Meditation, What Can Be Called Into Doubt,
Descartes attempts to disregard all of his knowledge in order to determine
what truly exists in the world. He does this by discarding any of the
foundations of his ideas and knowledge which can be doubted in the slightest.
Descartes does this disregarding of foundations of his knowledge in a reasoned
and methodical way. Descartes disregards these foundations so that he may
free himself of his preconceived opinions in order to take his continued
ponderings away from the senses.
An argument that Descartes offers as reason for his doubt is the Dream
Argument. Descartes’ Dream Argument states that the perceptions that he
experiences while he is asleep are much like those which he experiences when

2. 2
he is awake. Because of this, Descartes claims he can find no definite
reasoning to believe that he is awake or way in which he would be able to
distinguish from being awake and being asleep. From the Dream Argument,
Descartes concludes that he could be sleeping and all of the perceptions he
experiences are false.
Another skeptical doubt argument that Descartes explains is that of the
deceiving God. Descartes believed that there is a powerful, perfect, and all
knowing God that created human beings and could very well be deceiving us
of our knowledge and perceptions. Descartes writes that even our mathematical
knowledge could be controlled and deceived by an all-powerful and all-knowing
God. However, if God is perfectly good then he would not deceive us. If
someone does not believe in God, then they must believe in a creator that is
less than perfect and therefore easier to believe both in its deception and in
the doubt of our beliefs.
The last skeptical doubt that Descartes offers to disregard his foundations
of knowledge is the Evil Genius Argument. Descartes turns from the idea of
God as the deceiver of our thoughts and knowledge and instead considers the
possibility of an evil genius as the source of our deceptions, assuming that
there is a being that is capable of deceiving us in the same way in which
God would be able to. From this, Descartes concludes that it is a possibility
that everything he is experiencing could be the artificial creation of an evil

3. 3
genius who is making him believe that his perceptions and experiences are real
when they are actually artificially input into his brain.
In Descartes’ Second Meditation, The Nature of the Human Mind and
How it is Better Known Than the Body, Descartes determines that he exists.
He reasons his way to this conclusion through examining the act of thinking
about being deceived and his existence. In order for him to be thinking of the
nature of existence, there must exist a being to do the thinking. Descartes
sums this thought process up with the statement Cogito Ergo Sum, Latin for ‘I
think therefore I am.’
Descartes states that even if there were a deceiver to make him believe
his perceptions were real, there must still exist a being for the perceptions to
belong to. So from the act of thinking, Descartes reasons his way to ‘I think
therefore I am’. Even if he were being deceived about the content of his
perceptions or experiences, Descartes knows that since he is thinking and
pondering, he cannot be deceived in his own existence. From this Descartes
concretes his knowledge that he is an existing, thinking being.
Descartes considers that his knowledge of the objective content in the
world could be the result of a deceiver such as the evil genius. It is not
possible, though, that he could be deceived about his own existence.
Descartes gives an example of a ball of wax to show that matter
persists through time. Descartes shows that even the material things that we

4. 4
experience in the outside world are more reliant on the mind than on the
body for information regarding the outside world. Descartes claims that a ball
of wax is known more distinctly in the mind. Descartes Wax Argument is as
follows. As the ball of wax melts and its shape and size change, our
perception of the wax changes too. However, as the wax melts it still remains
the same piece of wax as it was in the beginning and so we know in our
mind that fact although it would not seem that way if we were to base our
knowledge solely upon our senses or perceptions. Descartes concludes from his
ball of wax argument that all of our knowledge of material things provide even
more evidence for the existence of a self as a thinking being. From this,
Descartes concludes that our mind is more distinct to our being than our body
is and therefore the two are separate things.
In his Third Meditation, Descartes gives his version of the Ontological
Argument and concludes that God is not a deceiver. From his previous
reasoning, Descartes has argued that he is certain of his existence and
continues to doubt his senses and perceptions since it is possible that God is
deceiving him. In Meditation three, Descartes explores the idea of God as a
deceiver more thoroughly. He begins with examining his ideas and determines
that there are three types: innate, those that come from within, and those that
come from without. Descartes reasons that some of his ideas seem to come
from outside of himself against his wanting of the ideas, but he cannot
correspond them to the outside world. He reasons to this as it is possible he

5. 5
has the capacity within himself to innately know such things. Descartes’
argument for the existence of God comes from the fact that he has an idea
of God. Descartes reasons that since he is a finite substance and God is an
infinite substance as the idea of a God is of a perfect being and this idea
harnesses more objective reality than the idea of himself, or a finite substance,
that he could not have created the idea of God on his own. Descartes
concludes from this argument that the idea of God must not have originated
in himself since God is infinite and he is finite.
In Descartes’ Fourth Meditation, he explores the possibility that he may
be in error in his Ontological Argument. Descartes has reasoned that God is
not a deceiver and He had created humans along with their capacities- both of
the intellect and of free will. Descartes states that within the will is where
error occurs and not within the intellect, therefore he cannot blame God for
providing us with free will that we may use to be convinced of or fall into
error. Descartes concludes that in order for humans to avoid any such error of
the will, we must allow our intellect to judge the truth as we move along in
our lives.
In Meditation Five, Descartes explores the properties of material things as
well as argues another way of proving God’s existence by exploring what
properties we can know belong to God. Descartes argues that when he thinks
of material objects, he thinks of the properties of these objects as extension,
such as size, shape, length, position, and movement. When he examines the

6. 6
properties of these material things, he expresses that it is as if he is recalling
something that already existed within him innately and although they seem to
exist within him, he is not sure of the source of the ideas. Descartes claims
that whether he existed or not, it seems as if these ideas would still exist.
Descartes argues that these innate ideas do not come to him through the
senses as he can think of things that he has never experienced before, such
as a thousand sided figure.
Descartes reasons that since he has an innate idea of material objects
that God must exist due to God’s essence. Descartes argues that it is because
of the essence of God that necessary existence of innate ideas are within him.
From this, Descartes concludes that since existence must belong to the essence
of God as well, that God exists.
Descartes examines the possibility of conceiving a perfect being without its
existing and concludes that in order for the idea of a perfect being to be
within us innately, that the perfect being (God) must exist. A perfection that is
included in the definition of a perfect being is that of existence, so God must
exist by essence and by definition. It is impossible to conceive in a perfect
being without attributing all perfections to it. Descartes argues that the
necessity of God’s existence is within us simply because of God’s existence and
creation of human beings.
Descartes argues further that all truths, even those of science, rest upon
the knowledge of God since what our intellect tells us is true once we realize

7. 7
that what we see is not a deception by God or other being since a perfect
God would not allow us to be deceived by himself or anything else.
In Meditation Six, Descartes examines the problem of the existence of
material objects. Descartes argues that his mind gives him the idea of the
existence of material objects and he knows that they exist given the laws of
science and mathematics. Descartes reasons that in order for him to imagine
things, such as a figure with a thousand sides, he must put in effort to bring
the object to his mind and that he can exist as a being without the faculty of
imagination. Descartes argues that thought does not require effort, however.
Descartes argues that thought is distinct from imagination since he can think of
things without having to imagine them in his mind in the present and
imagining things requires he bring the idea to his present mind. Descartes
concludes here that thought is a working in the mind of his mind’s own ideas
while imagination is a working of the mind as it pertains to senses and
experiences due to the body. Descartes’ conclusion is that imagination seems to
require the existence of a body outside of the mind.
From this conclusion, Descartes reasons that there is evidence that
material objects exist because of his senses. Descartes examines his old beliefs
and finds that they were due to his impressions based on senses. He believes
that these material objects exist due to sensory input as they appeared without
his necessitating of them and because these objects are more vivid in his mind
than those which he imagines. Descartes reasons that all of his imagined ideas

8. 8
come from previous experiences he had with his senses and are composed of
those memories. Descartes concludes here that nothing he can form in his
imagination would exist in his mind without first entering his mind through his
senses and a proof of this is that he can feel pain within himself, but not
through other material objects.
Descartes examines possible doubts that material objects exist, such as
sometimes when he sees things in the outside world that they seem to be one
way when in reality they are another such as when a tower in the distance
appears to be round when it is actually square. Descartes also gives the
example that an amputee may feel pain in their limbs that no longer exist so
pain in our bodies does not prove that we exist. Descartes reasons that it is
still possible that he is dreaming and of the possibility that it may be an
innate capacity within him that forces him to be deceived about things he
thinks he sees clearly against his will.
Descartes argues the mind-body distinction from the existence of material
objects. Descartes argues that he knows that he exists as a thinking thing and
if he can understand one thing distinct from another then it is necessary for
that distinction to be true. Descartes states that although he knows that he
exists, he is not certain of the existence of his body. Therefore, Descartes
concludes, his mind exists apart from his body and he is a thinking thing and
nothing else. He goes on to argue the mind-body distinction as it pertains to
extension. Descartes had previously concluded that he is a thinking thing that

9. 9
is not extended while having the idea of body as an extended object. So,
Descartes concluded that mind is separate from body.
Descartes argues that material objects exist, based off of the conclusion
that mind is distinct from the body. He reasons that he can understand the
ideas from imagination and senses, but imagination and senses cannot exist
without a being which thinks. Descartes further reasons that movement is a
property of extended things and he knows that he is capable of movement.
Descartes concludes that he is not only a thinking being, but he is also
extended. In order to be certain of this idea, Descartes pulls together all of
his previous conclusions to conclude that material objects exist and he can be
sure of it. His reasoning is as follows. Not only does Descartes recognize that
he has the power to examine the contents of his mind, but also that he has
the ability to originate ideas due to sense input in his mind. Since his ability
to originate ideas comes to him without his necessitating the thoughts, he
reasons that the capability is in a substance other than himself and his mind
and that this substance must be just as real as the ideas of material objects
that his ideas and senses produce. So, from here Descartes reasons that this
substance must be God or another extended object. Since God cannot be a
deceiver, then God must have created him and given him the inclination to
believe that the ideas of material things come from actual material things in
the outside world. If the ideas do not come from outside material things, then
God would be a deceiver and Descartes has already concluded He cannot be.

10. 10
Therefore, Descartes concludes that material objects must exist, even if our
senses do not mirror the objects as they truly are outside of our minds.
Descartes argues that our minds are within our bodies and perceptions,
such as pleasure and pain, arise from this conjoining of mind with body.
Descartes points out that mind is not divisible while the body is. Mind is
capable of knowing the truth, but our bodies are not. The senses that God
provided us exist for the wellbeing of our body and our mind.
I do not believe that Descartes’ conclusions are necessarily supported by
his reasoning as his conclusions are built upon each other and rest on the
acceptance of his premises and assumptions.
I think Descartes is wrong when he decides God must exist based on
the fact that all things must have a cause outside of themselves. If all things
must have a cause, then what would be the cause of God? An argument
against this is that a perfect God could create himself as perfection could
create perfection. With this, I still question that God could be the source of
His own existence, because if we were to make an exception to the rule of all
things must have a cause, isn’t it possible that Descartes or a deceiver could
be the source of his own existence, too? Since opening a loophole for the
existence of God being because of Himself would also open the causation
argument to loopholes for other possible methods of existence, no matter how
perfect or imperfect, I believe that the premise that all things must have a
cause outside of themselves is an incorrect assumption.

11. 11
Descartes bases the existence of God upon a hierarchy of existence in
humans, God, and all other things. He states that since God is an infinite
being, that we humans, as finite beings, could never be the source of an idea
of an infinite being. The source of God as an infinite being is supposed to be
an innate characteristic in humans, it seems Descartes believed. He uses this
premise to prove that God is an infinite being and therefore has more
objective reality than humans do. Descartes never spells out his reasoning
behind his premise he bases much of his argument from. I do not think this
premise makes sense and Descartes does not explain his reasoning behind this
statement or belief. I do not think that there are any objections to my
argument regarding his lack of explanation. It seems that the only possible
alternative would be to accept that his premise is correct and that humans
could not create the idea of an infinite being because humans are finite. As I
do not understand nor agree with this alternative, I have no reply to this
argument.
I do not agree with the conclusion that Descartes reached regarding the
existence of God being the reason he is not deceived in his Meditation Four.
If Descartes could be correct about the possible existence of an evil deceiver,
couldn’t the evil deceiver deceive Descartes into believing that God exists and
is the source of his existence? As far as I can investigate within my own
mind, this is a possibility and all of his beliefs such as the fact that he exists
and his reasoning toward the existence of God could be artificially formed in

12. 12
him through the deception of the evil deceiver. So, if Descartes were being
deceived the entire time, then the deceiver could certainly deceive him of the
existence of God and possibly even the existence of himself. A possible
argument mine would be in support of the hierarchy of existence in that an
infinite being must exist to create finite beings. If an evil deceiver did exist, it
would likely be a finite being which would then require that it were created by
God and placed higher on the hierarchy than Descartes was. The problem I
find with an argument based on this reasoning would be that Descartes
concluded he were not being deceived by God because God is an infinite and
pure being. If someone were to argue that God and an evil deceiver could
exist simultaneously due to the existence of the evil deceiver depending on
God, wouldn’t that lead to the acceptance that God was willing and able to
create a being that deceives humans? Because of this line of reasoning, I
would conclude that if one were to argue that the existence of an evil
deceiver would depend on God’s existence that they would contradict
themselves in supporting Descartes’ argument in Mediation Four since that
would require God creating an evil deceiver. If someone were to argue that
the evil deceiver could exist on its own, then this would bring the conversation
back to the question of whether or not a being could be the source of its
own existence, which I covered in earlier paragraphs.
I do not agree with Descartes’ premise that he could be dreaming and
unaware of it. Descartes never really proves that this possibility is false and

13. 13
therefore I assume that he had no way of deciding whether or not this was a
true possibility or not. I think that it is very possible to determine whether or
not I am sleeping or dreaming. At times I am able to control my dreams by
lucid dreaming. Lucid dreaming is when a person is aware that they are
dreaming and are able to control what happens in their dreams. When I lucid
dream, I am able to control what is happening such as defy the laws of
gravity and physics by flying and willing things to appear or disappear. Because
I am able to control dreams and I am also aware that these dreams are
happening, I do not believe it is entirely impossible to be completely
undetermined whether someone is dreaming or not. A possible objection to my
argument could be to suggest that lucid dreaming is merely deep imagination
rather than the actual form of dreaming which Descartes seems to mean. My
reply to such an argument would be that although I am aware and willing the
dream to happen, I am still asleep to the outside world. When I am lucid
dreaming, I often fall into a deep sleep in which others have difficulty waking
me. So, although I am controlling the dream from the beginning and willing
that to happen, I am still sleeping as it happens.
My last argument against the conclusions of Descartes due to the
incomplete and unproven premises by which his argument is built upon is not
my own, but a famous argument against Descartes which is of his reasoning
behind the existence of God to be in a circle, more fondly named as the
Cartesian Circle by philosophers over the centuries. In Meditation Three,

14. 14
Descartes reasons that what he clearly perceives must be true. Then, Descartes
uses this assumption to prove God exists as a perfect being that would not
deceive him. Based on his belief then that God is not a deceiver, he then
thinks that he can completely believe that his clear perceptions are true.
Through this reasoning, Descartes uses his assumption about being able to
believe fully in his clear perceptions to prove the existence of clear perceptions,
which is reasoning in a circle. Descartes does not comment on this circular
reasoning and therefore I believe this subjects him and his argument, along
with my other points in previous paragraphs, to being very unstable and likely
unprovable.