CHAPTER XVIII
DESCARTES’ CONCEPT OF A PERSON
SHAHID HUSSAIN
Descartes is sure that he exists;
1 but he wants to discover what he actually is, and how he becomes involved in the concept of a person. He is in pursuit of that which constitutes him, i.e., his essence or nature. The terms ‘essence’ and ‘nature’ for him refer to those properties without which a thing will no longer remain what it is. He says: "There is however one principle property of every substance, which constitutes its nature or essence."2 This is supposed to be permanent, never changing, and both necessary and sufficient to establish the existence of a thing with certainty. It may be objected that it cannot be both necessary and sufficient, since in that case the essence of a thing will imply its existence, and this, according to Descartes, is true only of God. There is no doubt that God is defined by him in this manner, but he maintains that created things also can be called things, because they need only the ‘concourse of God’3 in order to exist; hence, the same principle will be applicable to them as well.Descartes proposes to examine himself as clearly and as attentively as possible to determine his essence, of course, through sense perception. He mistrusts senses not only because they can be deceptive, but also because they can be called away. He does not intend to hold himself before himself, as Malcolm suggests, like an object O, having an essence, so that the perception (according to Malcolm some other verbs of cognition can be substituted for perception such as ‘be aware of’ or ‘apprehend’) of E may be the perception of O and vice versa, in which case E may as well be the essence of O.
4 He certainly does not appeal to the principle suggested by Malcolm:X is my essence if it is the case that if I am aware of x then (necessarily) I am aware of myself and if I am aware of myself, then (necessarily) I am aware of X.
Malcolm is wrong when he says that ‘sense perception’ is the same as ‘intellectual awareness’. He takes "I am aware of myself" as equivalent to "I am aware that I exist". Descartes, on the other hand, is of the view that his existence is not something he is aware of; rather it is a conclusion of an inference. He tells us:
5We do not have immediate cognition of substances . . ., rather from the mere fact that we perceive certain forms or attributes which must inhere in order to have existence, we name the thing in which they exist a substance.
Malcolm is not right in saying that nothing implicitly is concluded by Descartes about his essence in the ‘Second Meditation’. It is true that he does not say that thinking is his essence, but he does say that it is his only inseparable property. In Descartes own words: "Thinking is another attribute of the soul; and here I discover what property belongs to myself. This alone is inseparable from me."
6In order to know what actually pertains to himself, Descartes adopts the method of doubt. He calls into question everything about which he finds the slightest uncertainty. He finds that he can doubt his body, but not his existence. In his celebrated Discourse, he tells us:
7I attentively examined what I was, and as I observed that I could suppose that I had no body, and that there was no world nor any place in which I might be; but that I could not therefore suppose that I was not; and that, on the contrary, from the very circumstance that I thought to doubt the truth of other things, it most clearly and certainly followed that I was; while, on the other hand, if I had only ceased to think, although all the other objects which I had ever imagined had been in reality existent, I would have had no reason to believe that I existed; I thence concluded that I was a substance whose whole essence or nature consists only in thinking, and which, that it may exist, has no need of no place, nor is dependent on any material thing.
In the Principles, Descartes suggests that we can doubt the existence of God, sky, physical objects, and a body having hands, feet, etc., but we cannot call into question our own existence.
8 In ‘The Search After Truth’, Polyander declares that he is sure that he exists, but that he is not a body, "otherwise doubting of my body, I should at the same time doubt myself and this I cannot do, for I am absolutely convinced of it, that I can in no wise doubt of it."9 Descartes thus discovers his essence in thinking. He moves from the premise that ‘he can doubt the existence of his body not his own existence’ to the conclusion that he as such is either different from his body or there is no necessary connection between him and his body.The remarks in ‘The Search After Truth’ contain the following argument:
I can doubt the existence of my body.
I cannot doubt that I exist.
My body is not the same as I.
This argument, as it runs, gives the impression as if it were based on the principle that if two things are identical, then whatever is true of one is true of the other. It follows from this that if something can be said to be true of X, but not of Y, then X is not identical with Y. This principle has not been explicitly enunciated by Descartes but, perhaps, this might have been in his mind while framing the above argument.
It is true that Descartes can doubt the existence of his body, and not his existence, but from this it does not follow that he is different from his body. Let us take a counter example to see the falsity of this principle. If some one doubts whether or not the Prime Minister of England exists and proceeds in the Cartesian fashion, then he cannot resolve his doubt by arguing:
I can doubt if a Prime Minister of England exists.
I cannot doubt if I exist.
I am not a Prime Minister of England.
In the passage quoted above from Discourse, Descartes draws rather a stronger conclusion. He not only asserts that he is not identical with his body, but also that he is not dependent for his existence on his body. He notices that the proof of his existence depends upon his thinking and not on his body or the world. It appears as if he were employing some general principle of the kind that the existence of X depends upon Y, if the proof of existence of X depends upon Y. But he cannot accept this principle, because he offers a proof of God’s existence which depends upon his idea of the existence of God. And he would not be prepared to say that the existence of God is dependent upon his idea of God, for God could exist without anybody having an idea of Him. This argument, however, suggests an interpretation different from that given in ‘The Search After Truth’. Let us consider the following propositions:
(a) I think
(b) I have a body
(c) I am in the world
(d) I am in a place
(e) I am.
Here (b), (c), and (d) are uncertain, but (e) is certain. If (a) is true, and (b), (c), and (d) are doubtful, (e) is certain. From this, it follows that (a) is the premise both necessary and sufficient to establish the certainty of (e). It is true that each of he propositions from (a) to (d) entail (e), but they are neither individually necessary nor collectively sufficient to establish the truth of (e) because, in order to establish a conclusion to be certain, a premise should itself be certain. The premises (b), (c), and (d) are not necessary to establish the truth of (e), for even when each of them is doubtful the truth of (e) can be derived from the truth of (a). Moreover the truth of (b), (c), and (d) is not sufficient to establish the certainty of (e), not because they do not entail (e), but because, even if true, they are doubtful. The truth of (a), on the other hand, is necessary to establish the certainty of (e), for it cannot be doubted. The sense in which we cannot doubt the proposition "I think" is just this, that one’s doubting oneself presupposes its truth.
The principle, which Descartes appears to be following here is that those attributes constitute the essence of a thing which are individually necessary and collectively sufficient to establish the existence of that thing with certainty. As thinking is the only attribute both necessary and sufficient to establish his own existence, Descartes concludes his essence is thinking. One feels inclined to believe it, since it makes sense to say that those attributes constitute the essence of a thing which are individually necessary and collectively sufficient for the existence of that thing. Moreover, if a single attribute guarantees the certainty then it appears to establish it as true.
But this principle unfortunately is false, because it permits one to draw a false conclusion from premises which are true. In case we should suppose it to be true and affirm that thinking without possessing a body is not possible, then all the premises of Descartes remain intact and true. The proposition (a) will be both necessary and sufficient to establish the certainty of (e), since (b) though it follows from (a) in conjunction with the aforesaid supposition, it is not certain, because the supposition itself is doubtful. But the conclusion of Descartes that thinking is his essence will be false, since it may not be possible to think without possessing a body. Hence, it cannot be true that my essence is thinking, and at the same time that my existence is not dependent at all on the existence of my body.
In order to prove his thesis that thinking constitutes his essence, Descartes also resorts to the argument from clear and distinct ideas. He claims to have a clear and distinct idea of himself as a thinking and unextended thing, and concludes from this that he is distinct and separate from his body. He says:
10I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in so far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in so far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing.
This argument can be formulated as follows:
Whatever is clearly and distinctly perceived by me is true.
I clearly and distinctly perceive X.
X is true.
The ‘clear and distinct perceptions’ are self-evident truths for Descartes; they are held to be ‘known by the natural light in our soul’, i.e., by our intuition. They are said to be mental operations, hence beyond any logical or mathematical proof. The distinct perception of a piece of wax is an excellent example offered by Descartes. The piece of wax perceived by mind and senses is the same, but the perception of it is not sensory. It is a mental act, which Descartes calls the intuition of the mind.
11 In his words: "It is neither an act of sight, of touch, nor of imagination . . . but is simply an intuition (inspectio) of the mind." He further believes that what is produced by the light of nature or reason is indubitable. He is not prepared to doubt what nature makes him believe, for even if he tries to do so he cannot.Descartes makes a distinction between intuition and deduction. He regards the principles of both as simple and self-evident. But they do not escape his systematic doubt. The reason for doubting mathematical demonstrations and their principles is that people make mistakes in such matters and regard as absolutely true and self-evident what, in fact, is false. Moreover it may be due to the deception of an All-Powerful God. He might have created the people in such a way that they are always deceived even regarding those things which they claim to know best. Descartes remarks:
12. . . how do I know that I am not also deceived each time I add together two and three, or number the sides of a square, or form some judgement still more simple, if more simple indeed can be imagined?
The examples of intuition given by Descartes are of metaphysical nature, viz., "In order to think one must exist", "Nothing can be created out of nothing", and "If equals are added to equals, the result is equal". He does not regard them to be generically indubitable, rather extremely indubitable even to a prejudiced mind, for they are dictated by the light of nature. It is true that they are beyond doubt, but he does not hold that they are equally known to everybody, because people do lack clear and distinct apprehension of them. He says: "When we apprehend anything we are in no danger of error . . . we would never fall into error, provided we gave our assent only to what we clearly and distinctly perceived."
13 So the fault lies with ourselves and not with the axioms.But how can Descartes be sure that the light of nature is a true light and whatever it commands is never false? Here, he brings in the Author of this nature Who is veracious and never deceptive. His veracity being beyond question, and He being the creator of all things, whatever is clearly and distinctly perceived by us can never be false. It must be true, since it is in conformity with nature. He says: "After I have discovered that God exists, seeing I also at the same time observed that all things depend upon Him, and that He is no deceiver, and thence inferred that all which I clearly and distinctly perceive is of necessity true."
14 Here it should be noted that when Descartes says that self-evident truths cannot be doubted, he does not mean that we should not doubt them; his point simply is that, even if we try to doubt them, we cannot but give them our assent.There are, however, certain propositions which are held by Descartes to be generically free from all sorts of doubts. He had already concluded that "I think, therefore I am", but the second part of this proposition is re-assessed in the ‘Third Meditation’. He wonders about the source of his existence, and rejects it being himself or his parents. It cannot be himself, because then he would not have been so imperfect and ignorant as he is. It cannot be his parents, for they are primarily responsible for the existence of his body and not that of his mind. He asks: "From what could I in that case derive my existence?" once again affirming it to be his thinking. He also observes that as a thinking thing he possesses the idea of a Supreme Being, and therefore he must owe his existence to Him. The existence of God and that of himself is proved from the idea of a Supreme Being. Thus he concludes that thinking and the idea of God, or the propositions representing the mind’s consciousness of its ideas and thoughts, are beyond any doubt. In other words, the propositions that report the contents of the mind are unquestionable in the system of Descartes.
If the veracity of God is a ground for accepting the truths of intuition, then Descartes can be accused of arguing in a circle. Arnauld points to this circle thus: "We can be sure that God exists, only because we clearly and distinctly perceive that He does; therefore, prior to being certain that God exists, we should be certain that whatever we clearly and evidently perceive is true." Frankfurt is of the opinion that though Descartes was guilty of circularity, he could be acquitted of this charge provided we accept that while validating intuition, he was not trying to show that whatever was intuited was true, but rather that there could be no reasonable ground to doubt it. He further remarks that this is not the case with Descartes because he appears to be quite unconcerned about the truth of intuition; hence, there is a circle.
15But there, in fact, is no circle, for Descartes does not bring in God and His veracity to prove intuition to be valid. He regards simple intuition itself the ground for accepting its truth. The veracity of God is referred to not to prove the truth of what is intuited, but rather to indicate that what we have once intuited, can not be questioned. This does not show Descartes’ lack of interest in the truth of the principles and the conclusions he draws as Frankfurt believes; rather it indicates that there is no other reasonable way to establish the truth of a proposition but by intuiting it. Moreover, when something can be apprehended through intuition, a deductive proof is of no use. This is why Descartes did not think it necessary to demonstrate the veracity of God or to offer a deductive proof of His existence. When he moves from a clear and distinct perception of a thing to the affirmation of its truth, he does not appeal to the suppressed major premise, but affirms the truth of that thing directly from intuition. The veracity of God is brought in to avoid errors and to be sure that intuitions are true. He does not rely on an unproved assumption; he does not think that the veracity of God is a ground for accepting the truths of intuitions; Descartes does not at all doubt the individual intuitions. What he doubts is their universal validity, and it is in order to vindicate this fact that the individual intuitions are employed by him.
Descartes offers another argument to supplement the previous one to prove mind to be distinct and separate from body. What strikes him is the divisibility of the body into its various parts, i.e., ears, nose, limbs, etc., and the indivisibility of the mind into different parts such as knowing, feeling, willing, etc. The thoughts of a mind, according to him, are not related to it as the members of a body are related to a body; therefore mind must be different from body:
16There is a vast difference between mind and body, in respect that body, from its nature, is always divisible, and that mind is entirely indivisible. For in truth, when I consider the mind, that is, when I consider myself in so far only as I am a thinking thing, I can distinguish in myself no parts, but I very clearly discern that I am somewhat absolutely one and entire; and although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, yet, when a foot, an arm, or any other part is cut off, I am conscious that nothing has been taken from my mind.
Descartes maintains not only that mind is distinct from body, but also that there is a bipolar opposition between the two. We are told that it is not possible "to conceive the half of a mind, as we can of any body, however small, so that the natures of these two substances are to be held, not only as diverse, but even in some measure as contraries."
17However, when Descartes says that if some parts of a body are lost, then nothing is taken away from the mind, he is wrong; for, if the head is lost, mind also is lost. But perhaps what Descartes wants to assert is that the facts about the body of a person are not the facts about him, for it is logically possible that someone’s body might have been the body of someone else or no one at all as is the case with the body of a dead person. It also makes sense to suppose that persons might switch bodies.
18 If this is possible, then it follows that the fact that someone has a body is a mere contingent fact, so much so that the next moment one might find oneself with some other body or no body at all. Thus, what makes a particular person or a mind is entirely different from what makes his body the particular body it is.This disparity between mind and body led Descartes to believe in the durability of the former. The body is destructible, because it has parts, and parts can be separated; but the mind cannot be destroyed, for it has no parts to be separated. It may, however, be pointed out that mind’s not containing extensive parts is no reason to infer its incorruptibility, because not all that ceases to exist is extensive. For example, a sound does not cease to exist by falling apart into pieces, but by diminishing in intensity, so a mind may pass out of existence in the same way. Descartes would, however, deny this to be applicable to the mind, for whereas the mind is a substance, sound cannot be said to be so. Moreover, he does not infer the indestructibility of the mind from its indivisibility only, but also from its being a dependent substance requiring the concurrence of God for its continuance. This is why he regards -- and rightly so on his premises -- the arguments commonly advanced against the durability of the mind or soul to be inconclusive, for they make presuppositions which are demonstrably false. Thus, he establishes at least the possibility of the mind surviving bodily death.
NOTES
1. Cannot doubt my own existence without thereby affirming it: this is the paradox of ‘dubito ergo sum’.
2. Descartes, A Discourse on Method, Meditations, and Principles, tr. John Veitch (London: Everyman’s Library, ed.; J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1965), p. 185.
3. Ibid.
4. Cf. Norman Malcolm, "Descartes’ Proof that His Essence is Thinking", The Philosophical Review, LXXIV (July, 1965), reprinted in Descartes: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Willis Doney, Modern Studies in Philosophy (London: Macmillan, 1968), pp. 312-38.
5. The Philosophical Works of Descartes, tr. E.S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931), II, 98.
6. Descartes, op.cit., p. 88.
7. Ibid., p. 27.
8. Cf. ibid., p. 167.
9. The Philosophical Works of Descartes, I, 319.
10. Descartes, op.cit., p. 132.
11. Ibid., p. 92.
12. Ibid., p. 82.
13. Ibid., p. 178.
14. Ibid., p. 125.
15. Cf. H.G. Frankfurt, "Memory and the Cartesian Circle", The Philosophical Review, LXXI (October, 1962), 504-11.
16. Descartes, op.cit, p. 139.
17. Ibid., p. 76.
18. Cf. Anthony Quinton, "The Soul", The Journal of Philosophy, 1962.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]