PHL 251

God versus Error

In the 4 meditation Descartes finds himself faced with a problem. God

th

would never intentionally give Descartes the judgment that would lead him to err
for this would be an act of deception, and someone who deceives would indicate
malice or weakness in that person and God posses neither of these traits.
Despite this the fact remains that Descartes does make errors in judgment, quite
regularly in fact. Descartes reasons that this must be because humans are in
between the Perfectness of God and the nothingness which is the opposite of
perfection. Descartes believes that God could have made him in such a way that
he never makes errors, but God always does what is best so we cannot claim to
know Gods purposes and reasons. God must have a reason for not making us
perfect. If we look at the universe as a whole, it is itself perfect in nature. We may
seem imperfect but we are simply part of the bigger picture that is itself perfect.
Descartes imperfect nature comes from his errors.
There are two causes of Descartes errors; his intellect coupled with his
will. Since Descartes intellects role is to present himself with ideas of which

judgments can then be made, it is not his intellect that is the source of his errors.
Descartes then examines his will. God has given him a very powerful will, so
powerful in fact that it rivals that of Gods. God simply has more intellect that
accompanies his will. God gave him this will so the will cannot be the source of
Descartes error either. The error itself comes from his will having a wider scope
than his intellect; this allows Descartes to form beliefs on issues he does not
perceive clearly. Instead of letting his will run wild and apply itself to issues he
does not fully understand, he should suspend judgment on these matters. Unless
he fully understands an issue, he should not pass judgment for if he does and is
incorrect in his decision that he commits an error; and if by chance he makes the
correct decision, he is still wrong because he should not have applied his will
when he didnt fully grasp the nature of the situation.
Descartes concludes that error itself comes from a lack of restraint in the
exercise of ones will. When opinions are made on matter not understood. All one
must do to prevent error is withhold judgment about anything that is not vivid and
clear. This view suggests a form of volunteerism over our beliefs; that one
possesses a type of control over ones own will. When insufficient evidence is
provided we can simply choose not to pass judgment. Even more implausible, no
matter the compelling amounts of evidence for a belief, we still posses that ability

to will ourselves against that belief. Descartes himself admits to how powerless
we are against our wills in such cases as when a great light in the intellect was
followed by a great inclination in the will. If we cannot help but allow our will to
exercise itself in cases were we have vivid and clear perceptions it seems
implausible that we can refrain from passing judgment when our perceptions
are not as clear. Descartes would seem to suggests that we have more control
over our will when faced with unclear perceptions, but I see no clear and vivid
difference in the two cases that would suggest more or less power in the later
case. Where Descartes suggests this control over our own will comes from is not
clear; the mere fact that he believes we have power over our will in any
circumstance is puzzling for he has not at this point shown a clear and vivid
perception of this power.
Furthermore, if we are to refrain from passing judgment when we do not
posses clear enough knowledge of the issues. Would we ever have judgments
about anything? Descartes himself up to this point has a clear and vivid
perception of only a small number of things. He now is to continue through life
withholding judgments about basically everything; even the fact that he is a
corporeal being is up for debate.