Although Descartes’ argument makes certain points, I find it very difficult to make any sense of it. I believe that the mind and the body are two separate things, but I disagree when Descartes says the mind can survive without the body. If you have one without the other both entities seem insignificant. The mind and the body together create a strong force that we call life. Yet, Descartes feels that the mind would be better off without the body. So, I ask this question: what is the purpose of having a mind with out a body? I have trouble understanding the significance of a mind that is only used for thinking, or more specifically, doubting. The body is lik

If you look at this principle a little more deeply you can see that it has many flaws. Things like human error, misconceptions, and ignorance take away a great deal of validity from this principle. We can even see the proof of this in the movie “The Little Mermaid.” A utensil we know as a fork, the sea people called a “dingle hopper”, two different names for an identical object. From seeing this film, we know that a fork and a “dingle hopper” are the same thing. But what if everyone knew what a fork was, but no one knew what a “dingle hopper” was? People could argue that they were not the same object because they are unaware of the second name for the object. A person could argue that the two were different by saying they had different properties. To that person, this is a valid argument because they lack the knowledge of the properties of the second object therefore the two are not one of the same. In this case, people could not conceive the two to be identical so they do not have the same properties.

Descartes uses the Cartesian Circle to help prove Gods existence. He says that we know that God exists because we have the ability to clearly and distinctly perceive things. Since God is non-deceiving we know everything that we perceive is true. He then goes on to say that we can be certain that God exists solely because we clearly and distinctly perceive him. This argument seems to make a lot of sense, when in actuality Descartes is just making a circular argument. This argument is the same as trying to define a word using a part of that word in the definition. What if I were to hold the opinion opposite of Descartes and say that I do not believe that God exists? Descartes argument would not help to persuade me to change my mind. In fact, it would confuse me and cause me to believe that God does not exist even more because it is easier to believe God does not exist than it is to try to make sense of Descartes’ argument. Descartes argues about clear and distinct perceptions, but I don’t see anything in this argument that is clear or distinct. Anything can be proven true if argued with a circular argument. I could say that pigs can fly because of their pink pigment, and then go on to say that pigs have a pink pigment because of their ability to fly. Making this argument is the same as Descartes argument for the existence of God, but we all know that it is ridiculous to think that pigs can fly because they are

Some topics in this essay:
Cartesian Circle, Indiscernibility Identicals, Due Thompson, Using Descartes’, Little Mermaid”, Santa Clause, mind body, god exists, descartes argument, Principle Indiscernibility, indiscernibility identicals, principle indiscernibility, descartes’ argument, circular argument, h2o water, principle indiscernibility identicals, doubt existence, believe god, descartes circular argument, believe god exist, pigs fly pink, sense descartes’ argument,