Naturally in the dark

Nature as teacher comes from the resemblance thesis (as it is called by Hatfield). It is one explanation for why we believe that things outside of us are the sources for ideas. We are lead to believe that nature is natural light, but what it really is natural impulse. The key difference here is that the light is indubitable while the impulse is fallible. Descartes explains that natural impulses (namely sensations) have already proven to lead us in the wrong direction in our judgment. Plus there is also the consideration that we make a judgment with the assumption that the idea was given to us through nature and natural light because we did not will it into our minds, but this does not prove that there are things outside us, which give birth to these ideas. What I thought was natural light revealed through impulse could have been “some other faculty not fully known to me, which produced these ideas without an assistance from external things” like dreaming (CSM 27).

Natural light is shown through the cogito. And, if I understand it correctly, may actually be the source that shows us that what nature teaches us cannot be trusted. Natural light must be made separate from the truth rule, or at least I believe them to be two separate things. Previous to this meditation natural light was brought up alongside reason and I assume that although not explicitly stated they are the same concept. Another question I have concerning natural light is that Descartes states that, “there cannot be another faculty both as trustworthy as the natural light and also capable of showing me that such things are not true.” (CSM 27). It is this “not” that makes me a little hesitant about what natural light exactly is. Could something we believe to be true because it has not been proven false by our natural light, still be false because it natural light has only as of yet not shown it to be false? Or is everything not shown to be false by natural light is necessarily true? Does distinct and clear perception play a role in deciding what is true once natural light has not proven something false? I may simply be confusing things more... which is something Descartes does to me, but hopefully there is a simple explanation that I have just missed.