“Is Descartes’ Wax example a convincing argument for Rationalism?

René Descartes (1596-1650) was a French philosopher and mathematician with great
ambition, and was very significant in stirring up philosophical opinions which had not had a
very wide scope since the times of Aristotle and even Plato. His aim was to completely
change the traditional outlook on philosophy rather than simply make a contribution. He is
noted for being the founder of Continental Rationalism – a system of beliefs that claims
human reason is the source of knowledge. Educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in
Anjou from 1604-12, Descartes studied classics, logic, mathematics and the traditional
Aristotelian philosophy (it should be noted that Descartes was devoutly Christian throughout
his life although he did a great deal of sceptic thinking on all accounts.)

"...those who are seeking the strict way of truth should not trouble themselves about any
object concerning which they can not have a certainty equal to arithmetical or geometrical
demonstration." (René Descartes, LaFleur 1968)

Descartes was not a sceptic, and he only used scepticism in his efforts to defeat the
arguments of the sceptic. However, with rationalism, he believed that knowledge is best
gained through examination with the intellect rather than through the senses. Before Descartes
developed rationalism however, his beliefs were very different (initially it seemed to him that,
since he could see material things such as wax, yet not his soul, he must have a clearer and
more distinct understanding of physical things):

"But it still seems … that Corporeal things … are much more distinctly known than this
mysterious 'I' which does not fall within the imagination." (René Descartes, Meditation 2: 66)

Descartes changes his mind when he considers that we could be deceived by the senses to
believe that we exist (which Descartes points out in his “Dream Argument” in Meditation 1.)
Therefore, it is only through intellectual means (thought/conscious self-awareness) that we
can be certain of our existence (the cogito.) Descartes’ uses the example of a piece of wax
(The Wax example, Meditation 2) to show his rationalist method and that the senses deceive
us:

Descartes wants us to set radical doubt aside for the time being. First of all, we are asked by
Descartes what are the essential properties of an object (wax in the example)? The senses tell
us that wax is yellow, cool to the touch, has a certain shape, smells like flowers and tastes like
honey. However, when the wax is brought close to a fire or any heat source, all of these

Brendan Howard, 6JDS 1

sensuous properties change: It becomes clear, hot, and loses its shape, smell, and taste.
However, the wax is essentially the same as it has the same chemical make-up:

"Does the same wax still remain? I must confess that it does" (René Descartes, Meditation 2:
67)

Descartes concludes from this that none of these sensuous properties belong essentially to
that piece of wax. Instead, they arise only as it interacts with our sensory organs. Descartes
then asks what belongs to the wax "itself" - independent of our sensation of the wax. The
answer is simply the properties of being “extended” (persisting in space and time – modern
language would identify these properties as “quantitive”,) flexible and changeable. What must
be true of the wax in each and every appearance of it to us? For Descartes, the only essential
property for something to be seen as “extended” is that it is a three-dimensional object
capable of changing shape. This argument is weak as we now know from physics that mass is
also essential. Descartes cannot define the changes going on with the melting of wax and this
is enough for his to claim the knowledge that the wax is “still wax” when changed in physical
properties, is solely down to his mind (this is Descartes developing his theory of Dualism –
that the mind and the body are two entirely different things):

"I grasp that the wax is capable of innumerable changes of this sort, even though I am
incapable of running through these innumerable changes by using my imagination. Therefore
this insight is not achieved by the faculty of imagination…It remains then for me to concede
that…I perceive it through the mind alone." (René Descartes, Meditation 2: 67-8)

Descartes thinks that we’ve arrived at these conclusions by stripping the wax of all of the
properties we perceived it to have. What is left is what we "grasp" of the wax, not through the
sense, but rather through our intellectual faculties – essentially, the understanding of an object
is done the intellect and not by the senses. On the other hand, don’t we "observe" persistence
in time and space, just like we do those other properties? Why shouldn’t we think of
"extension" as also a sensory property? Furthermore, perhaps wax is essentially the kind of
stuff that undergoes particular types of observable changes. In fact, don’t we re-identify the
wax over time by observing the relevant changes? If so, then knowledge of the nature of the
piece of wax could still come from sense perception. As well as the wax, Descartes uses the
example of figures crossing a road while he is looking out of his window to show that he is
able to recognise them as men (implying that with only sensory deduction he would only
recognise the figures as moving hats and clothes):

Brendan Howard, 6JDS 2

"were I perchance to look out my window and observe men crossing the square, I would
ordinarily say I see the men themselves just as I say I see the wax. But what do I see aside
from hats and clothes, which could conceal automata? Yet I judge them to be men. Thus what
I had thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment,
which is in my mind." (René Descartes, Meditation 2: 68)

This is a strong argument for the mind being key to judgement rather than the senses:

“Furthermore, even if Descartes' analyses are wrong, even if he determines through sight or
imagination that the wax continues after all, then this still presupposes that Descartes himself
exists and thinks. However you cut it, the direct awareness of the mind is prior to any
awareness of external objects.” (Douglas Burnham/James Fieser, The Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy 2001)

Descartes concludes from his investigation with the wax that he was wrong when he thought
earlier that material things could be known more easily than the mind. He says that we can
know about our minds/souls more clearly and more easily than we can know about physical
objects:

"there is not a single consideration that can aid in my perception of the wax or of any other
body that fails to make even more manifest the nature of my mind." (René Descartes,
Meditation 2: 69)

The Wax example is supposed to persuade us to trust the intellect over the senses when trying
to “clearly and distinctly” (René Descartes, Meditations) perceive the “true nature” of
physical things. However, it seems more plausible that perception is a combination of both the
intellect and the senses. Also, Descartes does not bother to distinguish between specific
qualities and qualities in general. With the melting of wax the colour may change and the
volume may decrease somewhat, but the wax still retains a colour and a volume. Therefore,
such properties could still be considered essential. With these objections to Descartes
arguments for rationalism in the wax example I think it is fair to say that the example is quite
a weak argument. It certainly doesn’t prove that rationalism is true as Descartes needs God to
exist (God is key to guarantee reliability of human reasoning, being an omnipotent entity that
would not deceive us) and God’s existence certainly isn’t indubitable.

Brendan Howard, 6JDS 3