Assess the Trademark Argument

Descartes argues from the rationalist perspective- he cannot just use his senses to know whether his sensory perceptions actually know things. He uses the analogy of having ideas in his mind, though he does not know if they exist outside of his mind. His mental representations may or may not have substance. Talk briefly about degrees of objective reality- but the degree of objective reality that an idea has depends on what the idea represents. If what it represents is very perfect then it will have a HIGH degree of Objective Reality. The idea of a goat is less perfect than the idea of an angel o Thus, the goat has a lower degree of objective reality. Dependency determines how much objective reality something has o An angel is less dependent as it is ethereal and has no body. A goat has a body and as such must have more objective reality N.B- the idea has objective reality, but the actual OBJECT (/thing being represented) has formal reality.

*Descartes Causal Principle* 'There must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as there is in its effect.' -Descartes uses this as the first proper premise of the Trademark Argument.

Tries to show that Descartes' idea of God could appear in his mind if there actually is a God. The idea of an infinite being cannot be produced from a finite mind. It has to come from an infinite being (i.e. God) 1. 2. 3. 4. The cause of anything must be at least as perfect as its effect. My ideas must be caused by something. I am an imperfect being I have the idea of God, which is that of a perfect being. 1. I cannot be the cause of my idea of God. 2. Only a perfect being can be the cause of my idea of God. God must exist.

5.

CRITICISMS Cartesian circle- *** God is known through clear and distinct ideas <--------> Clear and Distinct ideas depend

on God. *** Descartes presupposes what he sets out to prove. How do you know God exists? Because I proved his existence using clear and distinct ideas. How do you know that clear and distinct ideas are reliable? Because a non-deceiving God exists. Causal Principle is untrue 'There must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as there is in its effect.' His argument for this was that you couldnt get more out of the effect than there was in the cause, otherwise you'd be getting something from nothing. There are multiple examples in the world where you can get a lot out of very little- e.g. An avalanche caused by a whisper Bonfire it by a single match Chaos Theory (butterfly effect) Evolution came from disorganized matter. Quantum Physics denies principle that all events have causes adequate to them. Trademark cannot rely on Causal Principle (premise 1 in above argument) if these objections are true, and so the idea of God does not have to come only from a perfect being. Hume on Causation Hume states that we cannot figure out what caused

something by examining the effect. You see a window break, we cannot deduce from that what caused it. We cannot reason a priori about these things, but only a posteriori using empirical evidence We cannot tell what would happen to water by thinking very hard about what would happen if the temperature drops. Observing can tell us, and we can make inductive arguments regarding the nature of the external world- EMPIRICISM. Only way we can tell the cause of something is observing it in conjunction with its effect. Thus we cannot know what caused our idea of God without observing it coming into existence. Thomas Hobbes: Degrees of Reality are a Ridiculous Concept. 'Does reality admit or more or less? Does Descartes really think that one thing can be more of a thing than another?' Things either exist or they don't. Idea of more or less reality is bullshit, whole hierarchy of ideas thing is nonsense. Therefore most of the argument is undermined. We don't have an idea of an infinite being Descartes argues that we have an idea of an infinite and all-powerful being.

 We cannot frame a perfect idea of God, as we are finite and imperfect. Descartes' argument even says that a finite mind cannot come up with an infinite idea! Clearly our idea is finite. Can express idea in words, but do not have an idea of it. Can say it is the negative of the idea finite, but this is stupid and does not prove a thing. Therefore premises 3 + 4 are wrong. Idea of God is Incoherent If we can find fault with our idea of God, then clearly there is nothing perfect about it. A perfect God would not and indeed could not leave an imperfect idea in our minds. We can ask questions like the paradox of the stone, and so do not have a perfect idea of God. Therefore premises 3 + 4 are wrong. Not everyone has the same idea of God This states that the origins of God are Contingent, and generated by Humanity. Descartes wouldn't be impressed by this, as not everyone knows what is but it is still a universal truth and innate idea. Therefore, this objection does not have much weight. We generate God from experience (EMPIRICIST) We can view virtues in other people, and the extend

those and magnify them, translating them onto an imaginary being called 'God'. We arrive at the idea of an infinite being, but the cause is not at all perfect or infinite. Therefore, the Trademark Argument is refuted. P.88+89 Ideas have degrees of (objective) reality Degrees of reality determined by degree of perfection the thing the idea represents has. Degree of perfection determined by degree of dependence. ^Link the above to causal reality The trademark argument is incredibly sound. The Trademark Argument is Descartes' argument that because we have an A Priori idea of God, it must have come from him.