Explain and Assess Descartes Trademark Argument

apologize and Assess Descartes Trademark Argument Descartes Trademark Argument came roughly when Descartes was in the process of trying to build up the pick outledge he himself apprize get by a priori (without experience) through pure reason. When doing this be began to think about where his thought process of divinity fudge came from and eventually Descartes concluded that the idea of deity comes from divinity fudge himself and he explained this through the Trademark Argument. The argument is an a priori argument signification before experience.This sort of argument is the type that philosophers usually prefer beca determination, remote a posteriori or after experience, the evidence is not so imbeder to interpretation because any unity could dispute the true substance of an experience exactly its furthermost more difficult to do that with pure reasoning. The occupations and foundations of the Trademark Argument fabrication in the Causal enough Principle. This stat es that any cause of something must carry at least(prenominal) equal or greater properties than its effect, so in short it means that every cause must be equal enough to seduce the effect.For example, to break a window, the cause must permit enough power in the speed and weight of the object in companionship for the window to split. So in this case a locomote wouldnt cause the window to split skilful by trajectory into because it does not possess greater or equal properties as yet a flying brick will possess these properties so the window offer shatter. Descartes hence applied this theory with out ideas. Ideas must be caused by something, but this something must use up at least as some(prenominal) humanity as the idea themselves.A complex style of saying this would be Something (A) finishnot personify unless it is produced by something that contains either formally or eminently everything to be found in (A). To possess something formally is to possess equal prop erties while eminently is to possess properties greater. Lets look at this with an example. Ideas of Angels house be made up ourselves moreover by using our ideas of material things and immortal. The idea of Angels, which is far greater than any sort of human, but not as great as paragon, can be thought of as a lesser version of God himself.Descartes was sure that these ideas existed in his own consciousness only he could not exit out if they represented anything else in the real world even if he is led to think that by his instincts. Descartes believed that his ideas had degrees of objective reality so what they represent can be mensural in terms of accurateion. These ideas cant be more gross(a) or contain more reality than the things that caused them so we cant be the cause of our ideas of God because we argonnt thoroughgoing(a) enough to be fitted to do it even if we ar the cause of former(a) ideas such as substance which we cant be sure exists outside our own minds. So, if we cant be the cause of our idea of God, who can? This can hardly be answered in one personal manner for on that point is only one creation, according to Descartes, that has at least as much perfection as God and that is God himself. So for us to have this idea of God there must have been a God to put it in us in the first place. As Descartes described it, it is the mark of a craftsmen stamped on his work. This can be simplified by using a series of points to structure the argument.The cause of anything must be at least as perfect as its effectMy ideas must be caused by somethingI am saplessMy idea of God is of a perfect being soI cannot be the cause of my idea of God andOnly a perfect being could cause such an idea soGod (a perfect being) placed the idea at heart us and exists.That is the argument in its simplest form. oer the numerous years since Descartes revealed his findings in his work meditations there have been many supporters and backers of the argument, most of whom are rationalists who as explained before, like the a priori style of the argument.Other supporters we can assume could be major religions for example, such as Islam which would share the same view as Descartes that our idea of God is innate the implanted within us by God himself which can also be liven as a major strength of the argument. So, Descartes believes he has proved that in order for us to have the idea of God as a supremely perfect being it must be innate within us and must have been placed in us by God himself. However there are many critics to this argument which must be considered in order to assess the argument.Firstly, many philosophers have encountered problems with the Causal Adequacy Principle. Descartes considered this principle true for many reasons, one of the main ones we think that he believed in was you cant get more out of the effect than what was already in the cause, otherwise it would be something for nothing. This however may not be true beca use there are examples in the world which we can see as having more in its effect than what was in the cause. One of which is can we not light a large bonfire just with the upkeep of one match? Also can we start an come down with just the sound waves from one whisper?There are many other more scientific examples such as Chaos Theory, Quantum Physics and also Evolution. In the case of evolution, single celled organisms evolve into more complex beings just through the passage of time, once all life on dry land was just single cell organisms but now there are millions of different species all more complex than what came before. Hume also criticised the causative adequacy principle by saying we cannot determine the cause of anything by expression just at the effect. Can we know what caused a window to shatter before inspecting the evidence to find the cause within?All we know it must have been big enough with enough power quarter to smash through the window but we cant even know t his a priori. Hume said that we learn a posteriori that for a window to shatter it must have been caused by a large object with separate of power behind it. From this Hume seems to suggest that to know what actually caused our idea of God we much observe its cause. Hume also said that even if the principle is reverse and so how could Descartes assume that the principle can just be transferred from animal(prenominal) things to ideas without it changing?However there are philosophers who have defended the principle stating that rafts of rules have exemptions and why, if a rule does need exemptions which were not originally perplex out, is it immediately untrue. Things such as evolution, chaos theory and my examples of lighting a large bonfire with a single match and causing an avalanche with a whisper may just be exemptions to the rule however it still applies to many other things. Some philosophers have also criticised Descartes for specify his idea of God and an incoherent Go d. For example, Descartes describes God as being Omnipotent, meaning that he is all powerful.This would seem to satisfy many piles ideas of God however on close examination it is indeed incoherent. To illustrate this I shall use a paradox which undermines Gods power. Can God create a rock that he himself could not lift? Either way one thing he can not do for if he can create the rock then he cant lift it but if he cant create the rock there is still something he cant do. This paradox suggests Descartes idea of God is flaw and imperfect so a perfect being can not be the only possible cause of the idea according to the causal adequacy principle.From this we can deduce that its far more likely that Descartes himself created this imperfect idea rather than a perfect being. The final criticism I shall look as it one formed collectively by the arch-rationalists empiricists. This multitude of philosophers would consider themselves to rival rationalism as they believe that the mind at bi rth is blank and we gain all our ideas from experience, not reason or innate ideas. Hume, one of the leading empiricists, amongst others argued that we observe qualities in other people and so recognise there are degrees of certain qualities such as knowledge, power and benevolence.With these ideas in our head from the experiences we have had of other people, we can then extend these qualities until we arrive at infinite knowledge, power and benevolence. This way we have arrived at the idea of these things joining and making a perfect being with infinite qualities however we have arrived through it in a much less perfect way than through God. If this is correct then the origin of our idea is not innate and certainly not caused by God but just us manipulating what we have experienced to suit our of necessity as imaginative human beings. In conclusion there are many strengths and weaknesses to Descartes Trademark Argument.It is a compelling argument to follow because of the way it is structured and how it sets out to explain out idea of God in an untainted way, free of what can be misleading experiences and just work it out through the power of reason however once examining the potential difference problems that have arisen since Descartes time it would be difficult to believe the argument is the truth, and for myself it is implausibly difficult to believe in it knowing that there is an equal and peradventure more valid reason why we have an idea of God, as explained by the empiricists.