Heidi Darrington Argument Critique Argument 2 Second Meditation, p.

354

My view is that Rene Descartes argument that states I am, I exist in the second Meditation convinces the reader that they themselves exist. Thus, Descartes does a very good job making sure that each of the premises are acceptable, making the argument as a whole valid. Next, look into whether or not the argument as a whole is acceptable. This argument is acceptable if and only if we believe that we exist. There is a deceiver who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me and lastly that the deceiver may deceive us as long as he would like because as long as we think that we are something, we exist. Therefore the argument is valid, as well as sound. The strengths of this argument come from the first premise where Descartes states that If I convince myself of something than I certainly exist. This is a true premise because if you are convinced of something then you are thinking. If you are thinking this makes you a thinking thing meaning that you must exist. Therefore this premise stands to be a strength because if you are convinced you are of something, then you exist. Therefore you exist. Weakness from this argument comes from the second and third premises. The second premise contradicts the argument. When Descartes states that there is a deceiver who is purposely deceiving you he almost contradicts himself from earlier premises. When Descartes states, in the third premise, that there is a deceiver deceiving you, he says that it means you

exist. But, if the deceiver is deceiving you then it is as if the deceiver has always thought that you were nothing; yet never told you. Since the deceiver never told you, you continue to believe that you exist. On the other hand, one could also argue that this argument is a bad argument in a few ways; I will discuss a couple. First, one could say that you yourself are not being deceived, but that you are seeing someone else being deceived. This would make the conclusion I am, I exist false, because you are not being deceived. Secondly one could say that there is a third party involved in the deceiving. In this case you wouldnt be involved in the deceiving. Once again this would mean tha t the conclusion is false because, you are once again not being deceived. However, my view still stands that when Descartes states in the Second Meditation I am, I exist, his argument, when reconstructed, is valid and in turn sound through his three premises. Although his second premise is questionable, you must accept the premises. Therefore the conclusion, I am, I exist stands true.