1. I have an idea of a being that is "perfect" (this being is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent, etc.)

_____________________________________________________________

2. So this idea is perfect "in my mind." (Descartes says "objectively")

3. But nothing that is greater could have come from anything that is lesser.

_____________________________________________________________

4. So this idea must have come from an actually existing perfect being.

+

5. Ideas can only come from oneself, other ideas, or external things.

6. I am not sufficiently perfect.

7. None of my other ideas are sufficiently perfect.

_____________________________________________________________

8. So this idea must have come to me from some other being, who is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent, etc, (in other words, God!)

(1) Are all of the premises of this argument as "clear and distinct" (or indubitable) as Descartes might like us to believe. Do you think that they should all belong in the "foundation of knowledge"? Which are particularly dubitable?

(2) What about the inference from Premise 1 to Premise 2? Notice how it relies upon a resemblance theory of representation: for an idea to represent something, it must somehow resemble it. Are there any other ways in which a representing thing can represent that which it represents? Think "long and hard"!

i. Note how this is an application of the rationalistic method for obtaining knowledge. It attempts to derive knowledge through the careful scrutiny of one’s own ideas.

ii. Why do we have an idea of God (a perfect being) in the first place? What is Descartes’ answer?

iii. What is the role of God for Descartes theory of Knowledge?

<Allows us to discount the evil demon hypothesis, and to begin trusting our natural inclinations to believe in the existence of an eternal world.> Why?