Cartesian Circle Argumentative Analysis

In Descartes’ Meditations, there is a possible mistake in his reasoning, largely known as the Cartesian circle. This mistake is mainly noted in the third meditation. Considered to be a form of circular reasoning, several scholars have debated whether Descartes is indeed guilty of this logical fallacy. One version of the Cartesian circle mistake is the indifference between Descartes’ “clear and distinct ideas” and “natural light”. One argument offered that may disprove Descartes’ circular reasoning accusation is within Sara Scherer’s article “Descartes’ Escape Plan: Can a Simple Distinction Disprove the Cartesian Circle?”. In this article, Scherer explains Descartes’ “natural light” idea, comparing and contrasting it with Aristotle’s idea of “instinct”. Aristotle’s intuition and Descartes’ natural light are both infallible and self-evident, and they also allow the grasping of what are deemed first principles, which include logic, concepts, and universal propositions, concluding that “natural light is a way of knowing” (Scherer 28). Scherer then distinguishes Descartes natural light from “clear and …show more content…
Using Descartes’ Principles of Philosophy, Rickless determines that there are three different methods of perceiving ideas, as assumed by Descartes. These include perceiving through the senses, imagination, and through understanding. With Descartes’ claim that these methods produce clear and distinct ideas, Rickless claims that “not all these clear and distinct ideas are certain” (Scherer 29), with Rickless further explaining that “distinct perceptions of the understanding, not distinct perceptions of the senses, are certain” (318). Rickless then claims that understanding is produced by intellect. With these claims it is concluded that “clear and distinct ideas encompass, but are not synonymous with, the natural light” (Scherer