After reading through Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy

After reading through Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, I must admit that I am neither convinced by his ideas nor satisfied by his explanations. That is not to say I did not find his arguments interesting-far from it in fact-they were merely insufficient to persuade me. I assume that were we to read Descartes' responses to the questions he mentions in introduc-tion, I imagine some of my own questions might be answered, but until that time I will remain unconvinced.

To begin with, as we see in the First Meditation, Descartes eradicates the foundations of common beliefs and earthly perceptions in attempt to lay down new foundations for a very structured, purposeful argument. This idea, in conjunction with the cogito ergo sum are among the few things that I do not disagree with. The issues I have arise when he attempts to build his argument from this point, as he seems to be starting from the middle. As I understand it, Descartes begins his argument with Descartes, the only thing he knows to exist, and from there proceeds to establish the rest of the universe. Not only does this seem a bit egocentric to me, but he later establishes facts that seem to contradict his method. Take, for example, his proof that God exists. To summarize briefly, all things that exist must come from something larger, and as we define God as an infinite, perfect being of infinite, perfect goodness, then all things must therefore stem from Him. Also, because we have within us this idea of God, which itself is bigger than us and therefore must have come from God, then we humans, as we humans are in essence our thoughts, must have come from God. This is what I take issue with: if all things begin with God, then how can Descartes, without contradicting himself, begin his argument with Descartes?

The next argument of Descartes' that I find objectionable is, assuming God is infinite, perfect, and therefore not a deceiver, that Descartes' ideas, which he believes come from God, are true because God would not deceive him. This seems to me to be somewhat of a cheap fail-safe established to back up his arguments in case of a disagreement. I may be wrong, but it seems to me like Descartes is saying, albeit more verbosely and with more sophisticated language, "I thought of it, therefore it's true." This idea leaves room for much extrapolation. Take the following for example: Personally, I perceive the universe to be infinite, and not with my senses, as the universe is far beyond their range. This idea of the universe therefore does not come from with-out. Following Descartes' argument, this idea, as it is larger than me, cannot come from within. It must therefore come from God, and once again following Descartes argument, it must be true because God would not deceive me. Yet here is the issue-if Descartes arguments are to be taken for truth, then both God and the universe are infinite, and as such neither could have created the other. Following this, several options present themselves: 1) God is finite, meaning Descartes is wrong; 2) the universe is finite, meaning God has deceived me and therefore Descartes is wrong; 3) God and the universe are separate entities, which creates numerous contradictions in the origins of things and once again leads to Descartes being wrong; 4) God and the un-iverse are the same entity, but since deception exists in the universe and God is not a deceiver, this is either false or Descartes is wrong; 5) God does not exist, meaning Descartes is wrong; 6) the universe does not exist, once again meaning God has deceived me and Descartes is wrong; or 7) Descartes is wrong. Odds seem to point to Descartes being wrong.

I can see that my own reasoning is not perfect, but as I see it, Descartes argument is in-complete, which is why I remain dissatisfied with Meditations over all. I also take issue with several general facts about Descartes arguments, namely that he attempts to explain the universe using logic and that he shapes his arguments somewhat like an upside-down pyramid, extrapolating expansively from a single foundation, which, like an upside-down pyramid, is rather unstable. And so, while I found Meditations to be interesting in itself, that is as far as my opinion of it goes.

Dekartning Birinchi falsafa haqidagi mulohazalarini o'qib chiqib, tan olishim kerakki, men uning g'oyalariga to`la-to`kis ishonmadim va tushuntirishlaridan unchalik ham qoniqmadim. Men uning dalillarini qiziq deb topmadim, demoqchi emasman - ular meni ishontirish uchun yetarli bo`lmadi. O'ylaymanki, agar siz Dekartning kirish so'zida aytilgan savollarga javoblarini o'qib chiqsangiz, men o'zimning ba'zi savollarimga javob topilishi mumkin deb o'ylayman, ammo men ungachayam bu asardan qoniqmaslik holatimni davom ettirsam kerak.

Birinchi meditatsiyadan ko'rinib turibdiki, Dekart o`zining puxta o`ylangan va o`z maqsadiga ega bahsiga yangi poydevor qo'yish uchun urinayotgan bir paytda u keng tarqalgan e'tiqodlar va dunyoviy tushunchalarni yo'q qiladi. Bu g'oyalar esa, men rozi bo'la olmaydigan va hattoki aqlimga ham sig`dira olmaydigan tushunchalar qatoriga kiradi. Menga u xuddi o`z fikrlarini o'rtadan boshlaganga o'xshadi. Mening tushunishimcha, Dekart o'zining bahslarini Dekartdan ya`ni o`zidan boshlaydi: u o`zining borligini biladi va u xuddi shu yerdan olamning qolgan qismini o'rnatishni davom ettiradi. Bu nafaqat menga balki, keyinchalik o'z uslubiga zid bo'lib ko'rinadigan ba`zi faktlarni aniqlaydi. Masalan, Xudo borligini isbotlab bering. Qisqacha xulosa qilib aytadigan bo'lsak, mavjud bo'lgan hamma narsa kattaroq narsadan kelib chiqishi kerak va biz Xudoni cheksiz, mukammal va buyuk deb ta'riflasak, demak hamma narsa Undan kelib chiqadi. Bundan tashqari, bizda Xudo haqidagi tasavvurlar bor, chunki u bizdan buyuk va shuning uchun ham biz odamlar bizni U yaratganiga ishonamiz. Shu yerda juda ham bahsli savol kelib chiqadi: hamma narsa Xudodan boshlanar ekan, unda qanday qilib Dekart, o'z fikrlarini o`zidan boshlaydi???

Dekartning e'tiroz bildiradigan keyingi dalili, men Xudo cheksiz, mukammal va yolg'onchi emas, deb o'ylayman, Dekartning ham Xudo haqidagi ayrim fikrlari haqiqatdir, masalan Xudo uni aldamaydi. Menimcha, shu yerda kelishmovchiliklar yuzaga kelganda, uning ayrim dalillari ishonchsiz va qoniqarsiz. Men yanglishgan bo'lishim mumkin, lekin menimcha, Dekart so'zlar bilan ham, o'ta murakkab til bilan ham aytadiki: "Men bu haqda o'ylaganligim uchun ham bu haqiqat". Quyidagi misolni olsak: “Shaxsan men koinotni sezgilarim bilan emas, balki shunchaki uni cheksiz deb bilaman, chunki koinot ularning doirasidan tashqarida”. Shuni aytish kerakki, koinot haqidagi bu fikr bekorga aytilmaydi. Ammo bu yerda masala shundan iboratki, agar Dekartning dalillarini haqiqatda qabul qilish kerak bo'lsa, unda Xudo ham, koinot ham cheksizdir, shuning uchun ikkinchisini ham yaratib bo'lmaydi degan g`oya kelib chiqadi bizning ongimizda.

Bundan tashqari yana bir nechta qarama qarshiliklar ham mavjud: 1) Xudo cheksizdir, ya'ni Dekart noto'g'ri; 2) olam cheksizdir, demak Xudo meni aldaydi va shuning uchun Dekart noto'g'ridir; 3) Xudo va olam alohida narsalardir, bu narsa narsalarning kelib chiqishida ko'plab qarama-qarshiliklarni keltirib chiqaradi va Dekartning yanglish bo'lishiga olib keladi; 4) Xudo va olam bir xil mavjudotdir, lekin olamda yolg'on mavjud va Xudo yolg'onchi emas, bu noto'g'ri yoki Dekart noto'g'ri; 5) Xudo mavjud emas, demak Dekart noto'g'ri; 6) olam yo'q, Xudo meni aldaydi va Dekart noto'g'ridir; yoki 7) Dekart noto'g'ri.

Asardagi bundayin qarama-qarshiliklar, Dekartning ayrim joylardagi fikrlarida xato qilganiga ishora qilsa kerak.

O'zimning mulohazalarim mukammal emasligini bilaman, ammo men ko'rib turganingizdek, Dekartning ham dalillari to'liq emas deb o`ylayman. Men shuningdek, Dekartning dalillari haqida bir nechta umumiy dalillarni ham keltirib o`tdim, masalan, u mantiqdan foydalanib olam haqidagi o`z tushunchalarini tushuntirishga harakat qiladi va o'zining dalillarini qandaydir bir shaklda qolipga solib, piramidaga o'xshab shakllantiradi. Yuqoridagi dalillarga asoslangan holda bu piramidani juda beqaror desak mubolag`a bo`lmaydi. Shunday qilib, menga meditatsiya o'z-o'zidan qiziqarli bo'lib tuyulgan bo'lsa ham, undagi men o`zim uchun topgan ayrim kamchiliklar meni qoniqtirmadi va, albatta, shuni aytishim kerakki bular shunchaki mening fikrlarim xolos.