Descartes Defects of Soul

The Defects of Descartes Soul: Whether it is Manifestly Impossible to Derive God From Defects

Descartes believes that the perfection of worldly nature is derived from his soul. Nevertheless, Descartes’s soul could not derive ultimate perfection from nothingness since that would be “manifestly impossible” (18). However, this led Descartes to believe that his soul derives from a more excellent nature than his own. A nature more perfect than Descartes is defined as God(18). God helps reconcile the imperfections in Descartes’ soul. God knows everything and embodies all the perfections Descartes could think of but could not manifest himself. Descartes needs God because he is not wholly perfect.

Descartes’ argument as to why his soul was not wholly perfect was because a greater perfection to Descartes was to know rather than doubt(18). Because Descartes has doubts, he could not reasonably say he was perfect. Perfection derives from Descartes’ nature or the defects of his nature. However, Descartes could not derive God from his defects because it would be repugnant to state that God came from defects(19). It would be paradoxical to derive a Being that is perfect from defects. Because God could not come from Descartes, God must be outside of Descartes. For all the defects that Descartes has, they would not be found in God. Therefore, as the most perfect Being, God is the only other truth Descartes can know.

I think that Descartes’ understanding of God helps refine his idea of truth because it is true that Descartes, as a man, has defects and, therefore, cannot be God. Moreover, if there were a God, it would imply absolute perfection. However, I cannot say that Descartes’ view that “To derive it [God] from nothingness was manifestly impossible” is wholly accurate(18). Although I agree that Descartes can never be eternal, immutable and omniscient, I do not believe that those are requirements for God(19). Nothingness is not a defect, and it is a necessary state. Without nothingness, there cannot be any form of God because God is in a form derived from something and nothing at the same time. This paradoxical nature of God is repugnant to Descartes because it does not seem possible for the most perfect being to exist while simultaneously not existing. It does not make logical sense that God is created from nothing. However, with something, how can there be everything? If God were everything, then there would have to be an opposing side to him. That is why I believe that God is in a state of eternal sorrow to achieve happiness.

Descartes wrote, “I saw that doubt, inconstancy, sorrow, and similar things could not be part of God’s nature since I would be happy to be without them myself.” Descartes believes that because God is perfect, He is absent from sorrow(19). Because without some form of sorrow, one would not know pleasure. Furthermore, if God is genuinely Omniscient, they must be eternally sorrowful to achieve eternal happiness. It is paramount for a perfect being to know both good and evil to contrast. Descartes would argue that God would be perfect if he had defects like sorrow. My answer would be that there must be an opposing force; otherwise, God would have no purpose. The purpose is to explain why ignorance and knowledge exist. We must first be ignorant of the truth; with time, we may find the truths of ourselves and God, but first, we must be ignorant. We reject ourselves and God because we are ignorant of the truths.

Works Cited

Descartes, René, 1596-1650. A Discourse on Method. Project Gutenberg, 1995.