In the first meditation, Descartes denied all sense based belief, because he felt that the senses could not be shown to be reliable. Often the senses would lead a person to false belief. However, Descartes tried to show how we could once again accept some sense-based beliefs.

Having argued for the existence of God, Descartes felt that whatever one clearly and distinctly perceived must be true. The basis for this lies in God's existence as a supremely perfect being; a being that would not allow Descartes to be deceived when he used his faculties correctly.

It could not be that a perfect being, one who is not a deceiver, would create man such that despite using his best reasoning, he would invariably reach the wrong conclusion. Nor could it be that only by chance would man stumble across the right answers.

Problems arise when Descartes also uses the clear and distinct argument as proof of God's existence. If we know that God exists because we clearly and distinctly perceive him, but we need to be certain of God's existence in order to know that what we clearly and distinctly perceive is true, then the argument is circular.

If this is a clear statement of what Descartes meant, then there is no hope for his theory. The circle would firmly lock out the possibility of ever learning either statement's veracity. Only by denying or restating one of the premises can the Cartesian Circle be opened.

1. I can know that whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive is true only if I first know that God exists and is not a deceiver.
2. I can know that God exists and is not a deceiver only if I first know that whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive is true.

I believe that the first premise is stated exactly as Descartes intended, and that it was in fact the driving point in some sections of the meditations. Only by asserting God's existence could he counter his first arguments and restore the value of the senses. However, some philosophers have tried to argue that Descartes really meant something else by (1) and so before I proceed on to the real heart of the matter, I should address that theory.

The theory states that only by our knowledge of God's existence can one be certain that what they had clearly and distinctly perceived previously was correct. Were this Descartes' real meaning behind the Cartesian Circle, then the fact that we can know something because it is clearly and distinctly perceived is yet to be proven. And, thus, we cannot know that God exists or that he is not a deceiver.

This first attempt at breaking the loop would require a whole new argument giving basis for accepting sense perceptions. This would perhaps be a worthy area for future philosophical development, but it is not the area where Descartes intended his own arguments to go.

So the next step would be to try to alter or deny the second proposition, that we can only know of God's existence by clear and distinct perception. Descartes presented several arguments for the existence of God, not just the Clear and Distinct Perception Argument. By denying the second premise, we can argue for God's existence through one of those other lines, and still maintain Descartes' involvement in the argument.

While the denial of the second premise would allow us to maintain sense belief based on clear and distinct perceptions, and would allow us to continue arguing for God's existence through another line, perhaps there is a way to maintain that second premise. This would require an alternate interpretation of the premise.

An argument presented by James Van Cleve would allow us to break free of the Cartesian Circle. It alters the meaning of the second premise so that we can search elsewhere for proof of God, while still maintaining the truth of that premise.

Van Cleve suggests that there are two possible interpretations of premise (2):

1. For all premises, if I clearly and distinctly perceive that premise, then I am certain of that premise.
2. I cannot doubt that for all premises, if I clearly and distinctly perceive that premise, then that premise is true.

The first possible interpretation is what Van Cleve proposes that Descartes meant by his second premise. Or, at the very least, Van Cleve says that this will avoid the problem of circularity.

Rather than interpreting the second premise to mean that clear and distinct perception is how we can be certain of God's existence, as through a formula, Van Cleve proposes that the second premise is a statement of how we become certain of God's existence. This is more a statement of fact, than an argument. When a person clearly perceives that something is true, then they believe that it is true.

It is questionable whether Descartes really intended this premise as a statement about personalities, or how man comes to believe a thing. It seems more likely that he intended it as an argument for the existence of God. Either way, the Cartesian Circle appears to have been broken by Van Cleve's argument, and sense belief can once again be accepted.

Please submit any comments, criticisms, marriage proposals, etc. to [email protected]. I also accept donations. To donate money, please contact me for my mailing address.

Philosophy Index
Political Essay
Descartes' First Meditation
Descartes' Wax Analogy