Decartes is one of the greatest phylosophers of the 17th century. He made radical turning of the mind by the critics of traditional culture, physolophy and scientific legacy, and nominated new principals, new type of knowledge, that is focused not on existence and God, but on human and rational beginning.
Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences is the important part of all phylosofy results, which were made by Rene Decartes.
The main problem arising at studying of stated views of Descartes consists in how the above-stated three main principles of knowledge at Descartes correspond among themselves and what of them is the most fundamental.
After all, though reliability of any knowledge is based on existence of the perfect and truthful God, all Cartesian proofs of life of God, in turn, with necessity based on «natural light» reason.
From Descartes's correspondence with Mersenne it is clearly visible that in a question on the relation of will of God and eternal trues (about freedom of God) views of the great French philosopher really were directly opposite Leibniz’s (about which it will be told more low). Descartes considered that «mathematical trues have been created by God and depend on Him as well as other creations».
It is interesting that whereas one, like Leibniz, reproach Descartes that he does not conform to the rules logicians and puts its validity in dependence on life of God, Edmund Husserl, on the contrary, speaks, objecting Descartes that the logic, as well as all primary sciences, should be deprived the importance in the course of a phenomenological reduction. He reproaches Descartes that that, aspiring to creation of a universal science (“mathesis universalis”), from the very beginning was guided by a mathematical, geometrical ideal of a science.
It is also considered that Descartes in the course of the reasoning makes a certain substitution. In the beginning he understands clearness (and distinctness which represents only higher degree of clearness) as a spontaneity of internal, intellectual contemplation. But then Descartes substitutes intuitive clearness logic which does not prove existence of a represented thing. Descartes departs from initial understanding of criterion of true for the proof of existence of bodies as direct comprehension of a body by thinking is impossible. Because of it both there is a contradiction and there is a necessity in circulation to theology. After all not all can be comprehended by intellectual contemplation, and the logic analysis of the sensual data it is not enough for achievement apodictic reliability. Thus, the reference to God urged to fill lacks of human informative abilities. It is considered that actually 3rd theological principle of epistemology of Descartes, is the first, the reliability rule on which, in turn is based «cogito» is already deduced from it.
“In fine, to conclude this code of morals, I thought of reviewing the different occupations of men in this life, with the view of making choice of the best.”(Part 3)
The idea of God by Descartes is based on his "Ego", but then this idea is put by it in the basis of all knowledge. Thus, the sequence of deducing of concepts appears opposite to an order of things in the nature. There is the opinion that it occurs because that it was possible to pass to the proof of life of God, the idea of God should be preliminary cleared (in doubt) of other ideas which give rise to set of representations about God.
“And though men of the highest genius study this question as long as they please, I do not believe that they will be able to give any reason which can be sufficient to remove this doubt, unless they presuppose the existence of God.”(Part 4)
In my opinion, this "compromise" is somehow orthodox idea of "synergy" of the person and God in rescue business. The person realizes the sinfulness (doubt in the knowledge), immortality and a jewelry of the soul («cogito» both reasoning on a shower and a body), feels in itself a voice of the conscience clearly saying that is good and that is bad (the criterion of the validity), understands that it cannot create good without God (the statement of necessity of the proof of life of God for a substantiation of criterion of the validity) and addresses to God. However the internal reference is made by the person, and from it purposeful work and the constant attention directed on is required avoiding a sin (not to run into error, confirming or denying that is not learnt). It is quite pertinent here and theodicy. But Descartes too easily, like a Protestant, sweeps aside the doubts and further does not observe necessary care in removal of judgments, considering once were made and overcome methodical doubt as panacea from errors for all subsequent time (as Protestants and Baptists once and, probably, formally having believed, consider itself rescued).
To clearing of my opinion concerning a problem of "vicious circle" at Descartes can help and such analogy.
The reason cannot be based only on itself. Though, as tells Heraclitus, reason at all one, the philosophy history shows, to however different conclusions it can come at different people. The reason is defined by something distinct from, irrational, but not external in relation to soul. Whether is it is belief (in any sense of this word)? But also the belief or something other, any reason cannot be defined. It is impossible to trust in everything, everything, referring to basic irrationality of belief. It should be to some extent certified reason. A certain circle - whether it is initially set to the person, a consequence of its finiteness? But at the same time, duality is a basis of development and movement.
Works of Rene Decartes had a huge influence on that day’s philosophy. He interpreted the most common results of modern science. A lot of truth, that he described in Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences have made a great influence on science development. His explorations and outlooks demonstrates how world is created. The foundation of his metaphysics is identity between matter and space. His principals are based on common sense linked with knowledge and deep understanding.
The cosmological proof (the posteriori argumentation)
Descartes's reasoning’s look so:
1) If I doubt, mean, I am imperfect (as I don’t know everything);
2) But if I know that I am imperfect, I should know perfect (differently I could not know that I am imperfect);
3) And this knowledge of the perfect cannot proceed from me as I am imperfect (imperfect reason cannot be a source [basis] of perfect idea);
4) Hence, there should be the perfect Reason which is a source of this perfect idea. The given approach is rather original, even unique. Descartes proved existence of God, yet without knowing, whether there is an external world.
The ontological proof (the aprioristic argument)
Descartes trusted in a solvency of the ontological proof of life of God. It formulated it so:
1) Existence of God cannot be thought only as potentially possible, but not actual (for then God would not be necessary Essence);
2) We can think of existence of God (it is not inconsistent);
3) Hence, existence of God must be thought of as more than only potentially possible.
The main difference between these proofs is not only the difference between proofing process (posteriori and aprioristic), but also in a subject of proof. The main reason why there are two proofs is deep understanding of posteriori and aprioristic subjects, that God’s existence is not relaying on experience.
These two proofs demanded different types of thinking from Decartes, so they do different work for him, but the way of proofing is similar in both times.