The Problem of the Cartesian Circle

The central argument in René Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy is the problem of the Cartesian circle; Descartes tries to validate clear and distinct perceptions by appealing to the truth of God's existence along with his own. Although the Cartesian Circle harms the validity of Descartes' overall epistemological project, the circular problem and the unreliability of intuition is inevitable. Descartes argues that clear and distinct perception is a guarantor of truth because of God, who is not a deceiver and would not allow Descartes to be mistaken about what he clearly and distinctly perceives. In this paper, I will argue the problem of the Cartesian Circle and the extent to which it affects his overall epistemological project. I will do so by explaining that there is no avoiding the Cartesian Circle as a result of Descartes' belief that there is no tangible evidence that God does not deceive/ lie and of His existence.

The circular argument arises in the third Meditation as Descartes sets out to establish the existence of God. The doubt Descartes tries to set to rest by appeal to God's existence is a doubt as to the reliability of memory. He does so by using a scenario where mankind remembers a clear and distinct perception where he recalls an occasion that perceived clearly on an earlier occasion and what his mind simply apprehends clearly. Therefore, he claims that what we think to be the truth due to a previous occasion is justified. This suggests that the problem is that, when we remember having intuited something, we might not have in fact intuited it, but knowledge of God insures the reliability of our memory. Consequently, clear and distinct principles are justified by Descartes'' belief in the existence of God; even in situations of reliability and memory, circularity continues.

The Cartesian Circle then remains as Descartes states that God's veracity validates clear and distinct perception "And certainly, because I have no reason for thinking that there is a God who is deceiver" (25). By inferring that God is capable of deception and has the power to cause man to commit a mistake, Descartes claims that God is good. Therefore his claim that all other knowledge depends on the knowledge of God would still leave Descartes open to the charge of circularity; this is the problem for Descartes' epistemological project. He does this by employing a metaphor of a horse versus a horse with wings to the knowledge of God. In essence, neither can be present without the existence of the other, on the idea that "...the necessity of the thing itself, namely the existence of God, forces me to think this" (44). Therefore without God, there would be no human thought, which is "...and perhaps even countless other things of which I am ignorant--are in God either formally or eminently" (30). Though Descartes neglects to explain how he has reached