more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
How does the author avoid reasoning in a circle when he says that we are sure that what we clearly and distinctly perceive is true only because God exists? But we can be sure that God exists only because we clearly and distinctly perceive this.
Clarification
The famous 'Arnauld Circle', nowadays known as the 'Cartesian Circle'
Gist of Idea
It is circular to make truth depend on believing God's existence is true
Source
comment on René Descartes (Meditations [1641], §5.71) by Antoine Arnauld - Objections to 'Meditations' (Fourth) 214
Book Ref
Descartes,René: 'Meditations on First Philosophy etc.', ed/tr. Cottingham,John [CUP 1986], p.106
| 3612 | Clear and distinct conceptions are true because a perfect God exists [Descartes] |
| 2290 | Once it is clear that there is a God who is no deceiver, I conclude that clear and distinct perceptions must be true [Descartes] |
| 3641 | It is circular to make truth depend on believing God's existence is true [Arnauld on Descartes] |
| 4524 | Descartes is right that in the Christian view only God can guarantee the reliability of senses [Nietzsche on Descartes] |
| 3659 | I know the truth that God exists and is the author of truth [Descartes] |
| 9355 | One sort of circularity presupposes a premise, the other presupposes a rule being used [Braithwaite, by Devitt] |
| 9161 | Maybe reasonableness requires circular justifications - that is one coherentist view [Field,H] |
| 11059 | Circular arguments are formally valid, though informally inadmissible [Hanna] |