God only knows...

As meditators who have been led through his destructive arguments all the while denying everything ourselves, senses, the world, every object, person, and place we have ever seen or will see. We have followed Descartes letting go of everything leaving only a somewhat obscure notion of self. Then in a matter of a few lines God is proven. Something that people today and for all of time have debated and questioned without much resolution is just… proven. I feel like there must be an understanding here that I am not quite “getting”, I don’t feel that Descartes would make such a huge statement idly. My assumption is that, just like an impressionist painting, being so close and focusing on the details is not allowing me to see the big picture and truth. So, with that said here’s what I disagree with on the surface:

The nature or essence of an idea has demonstratable properties that are seen clearly and distinctly. Therefore these properties must be true. But then he states that “whatever is true is something” (CSM 45). I do not see how that follows. But at this point he is still talking about geometric shapes. His argument concerning God’s existence seems to be circular concerning these demonstratable properties. We know God exists because existing is a part of its nature. Descartes has linked the property of existence with God; therefore in trying to discover the proof of its existence we cannot separate it from God himself. I can agree that an essence can be true, but I do not see that existence necessarily follows. Also, there is the property of perfection, which God alone supposedly has. Descartes claims that perfection necessarily means existence, for a thing that does not exist is flawed (?). Hatfield discusses Gassendi’s counter to this, which is, “existing things equally share the perfection of existence” (Hatfield 219). This concept that if a thing exists then it is perfect because it has the unique property of simply being makes sense to me. Descartes may simply have a different notion of perfection, but it seems to me that something exists and thus is perfect or a thing does not exist and is thus not perfect. But then again, seeing as I have become this cynical thinking thing unsure of most things, I have forgotten about faith in favor of doubt and despite Descartes’ ability to “prove” God, it seems to me that faith is a big a crucial point he is missing.