Descartes\' Trademark Argument

Descartes's Trademark Argument
Maria Tinawi
9th December, 2015
CVSP 203
Eric Goodfield

Rene Descartes, in his third meditation, attempts to prove the existence of God, through what is known as the Trademark Argument. In this argument, Descartes claims that in order for properties and ideas to exist, a higher substance, or a finite substance must be existent; and thus for these finite substances to exist, even higher substances, the infinite substances, must exist. This is known as his "Levels of Reality" principle, which implies that more real substances must exist in order for less real substances to exist. To support this, Descartes put forth the causal adequacy principle, in which in order for one affect to exist, something had to cause it to exist. Therefore, he concludes that since, despite all he has doubted, he has the idea of God, a perfect being, in his mind, something had to have caused the idea to be implanted. He also claims that he can't claim things to be imperfect without knowing what is perfect to compare it to; thus, the fact he has such an idea in his mind, such a being must exist to give him the idea. However, his causal adequacy principle was proven to be false, simply because a property does not need to have the same properties as what caused it to exist. In addition, his degrees of reality has also received criticisms because one substance can't be "more real" than another. Substances and properties can't exist more or less. Similarly, this can apply to his argument about God's existence. Descartes claims that infinite substances must exist in order for all lesser substances to exist, and further adds that God is the infinite substance that causes all existing substances to be real. In addition, there are objections to Descartes's claims of God's existence, simply due to the fact that just because we claim something to exist, doesn't mean we have added anything to the concept of the object in question. This is to counter Descartes's Principle of Clear and Distinct Perception, which states that whatever one clearly perceives and understands, must be true. However, since there was much objection and fallacy to Descartes's theories and principles, it has been concluded that his "proof" of God's existence does nothing to actually prove the existence, but only further affirms the concept.
Descartes first separates himself from what he calls "formal reality", and doubts everything to exist; anything that he cannot doubt to exist, becomes a part of his "representational reality". Formal reality is the world outside his mind in the physical world. Representational reality is the reality within his mind that he cannot doubt to exist. These are a representation of formal reality, hence the name "representational reality". Anything that he is certain of, beyond doubt, is considered absolute and certain knowledge. However, Descartes claims that there are levels of existence in his representational reality. Through this, he thought of the Levels of Reality principle, which implied that some substances had to come from a higher level of substance, in order to exist. To start off is the terminology; Descartes says that a "substance" is something that is independent of anything else, such has the mind. Then there are "modes" and "attributes", which are dependent on substances to exist, and are therefore known as properties or characteristics. After clarifying the terminology, Descartes begins explaining the levels themselves. There are three levels of substances, each more real than the one prior to it. It starts off with the lowest part of the scale, the properties or "modes" and "accidents", as Descartes names them in his Meditation, which includes minor details, such as colour or shape. However, such a thing cannot exist on its own, so must be part of some bigger, more real substance, which is what Descartes calls the finite substance. Finite substance includes most substances we see on a day-to-day basis. Finally, there's the top of the scale, where infinite substances are. The infinite substances are the highest form of real substances to exist, and it is because of infinite substances, that all other substances exist. An example of this would go along the lines of this: the colour red is a property, however, it's dependant on the finite substance, a chair, or exist; and thus the infinite substance is God, a being that is omnipotent and eternal. This is all considered to be a part of Descartes's representational reality, as the Levels of Reality principle is part of what he absolutely cannot doubt. It is part of his certain knowledge. According to this, in order for a property to exist, a finite substance must have caused it to exist; because properties are dependent on substances. In addition, finite substances must have been created by infinite substances. Furthermore, Descartes claims that he has the idea of perfection, the idea of God. Ideas are attributes to substances, but he could not know what is perfect or imperfect by comparison without knowing perfection for the start. God is thought to be a perfect, omnipotent being, an infinite substance. Therefore, in order for Descartes to have the idea of God in his finite mind, the infinite substance itself must exist to plant the idea. This implies that something caused the idea to exist; further implying that substances can cause substances to exist. This one part of Descartes's attempt to prove God.
Another part of his representational reality, which follows his Levels of Reality, is his Causal Adequacy principle. The Causal Adequacy principle states that a cause must at least have as much reality as the effect, in order for both of them to exist. Something cannot come from nothing; therefore, the idea of God must come from somewhere, for it to exist. On the other hand, it cannot work vice versa where a mode causes a finite substance to exist. Properties cannot cause a finite substance to exist. Existence only moves down the reality scale, not upward. In addition, the principle says that a substance must at least be as real as the effect it causes, thus a substance of one level can cause a substance of the same level to exist; finite substance can cause finite substance to exist, in other words. Furthermore, Descartes supports this by claiming in order for a property to exist, it must have come from something which also contained this property. He uses the example of heat to clarify this claim. Descartes states that if something is hot, it must have been heated by something else which is already hot and transferred the heat. Descartes applies this to his Trademark Argument by stating that since there is the idea of God, an attribute to a finite substance which is his mind, then an infinite substance planted the idea into his mind; this infinite substance is God. He claims that since he is a finite substance, but has an idea of infinite substance, that there must be an infinite substance that put the idea into him. Since ideas of a certain level of substance cannot cause ideas of a higher substance to exist, he, as a finite substance, could not have thought of God, an infinite substance, on his own. Something cannot come from nothing. So he concludes that God must exist in order for the idea of God to exist, otherwise he couldn't have thought of it alone. This argument is known as the Trademark Argument, because, similar to a creator signing his product with a trademark, God has planted the idea of himself in Descartes's mind from birth. In addition, the principle claims that "whatever is contained objectively in an idea must be contained either formally or eminently in the cause of that idea" (Skirry). This means that what the idea is about must be formally, "a reality actually contained in that thing" (Skirry), or eminently, when a reality contains a higher form so long as it doesn't contain a formal reality, or " it has the ability to cause that reality formally in something else" (Skirry). To summarize it, the idea of something must be caused by something that contains the reality of that idea either within formal reality or eminently in a higher form. This applies to God in that God is not a part of formal reality, but is exclusively part of representational reality; however, he is a higher form of all else that exists, and so is capable of making it all exist.
However, unfortunately for Descartes, both the Levels of Reality principle and the Causal Adequacy principle have been disproven. Since both are disproven, the Trademark Argument would also be disproven. So, once again, we cannot prove the existence of God. Although Descartes's argument is "is grounded in a theory of innate ideas and the doctrine of clear and distinct perception" (Nolan). The way Descartes structures his argument is more unique than other attempts at proving God, in that he doesn't try to prove God as an entity, but rather that the idea is something innate, found natively in our minds. This is why he claims that the idea of God was planted within him from birth. The higher power has to exist in order to plant the idea innately within his mind. However this wasn't sufficient because his Levels of Reality and Causal Adequacy principle would have to be true, in order for his argument to be logical and reliable. According to the Levels of Reality principle, a property cannot exist without a finite substance, and a finite substance cannot exist without an infinite substance. However, this implies that some substances are more real than others; and in reality substances cannot exist more or less than others. Substances either exist, or they do not. Unless something exists in the physical world as a physical substance, then it isn't considered existent. Thoughts and ideas of one's minds do not exist without the individual thinking of them. Without this individual, the ideas would not exist at all, and so cannot be considered as part of the physical reality. In the same manner, the idea of God cannot be enough to prove God's existence, since without the thinking mind, a thinking substance, he idea cannot exist. Since an idea is only an attribute to the mind, the idea of God is only an attribute, and so is dependent on the mind itself. In addition, according to the Causal Adequacy principle, in order for a property to exist, it had to come from something that contains the property caused it to exist. However, that is not true because there are substances that exist, which have completely different properties than the substances that caused it to exist. In addition, Descartes is only claiming the proof of God's existence, after he has stripped himself from actual reality, and is inventing his theories and principles in his representational reality. All of it was only a part of his mind; he never found a way to implement it to actual reality, in a sense for everyone other than himself to believe it. He has merely proven God for himself, instead of proving it for the public. There is no link between his representational reality and actual reality. Although Descartes counters this objection using his Principle of Clear and Distinct Perception, which states that "whatever one clearly and distinctly perceives or understands is true — true not just of ideas but of things in the real world represented by those ideas" (Nolan), the argument is still considered inadequate. According to Descartes, in order for something to exist, an infinite substance must exist to cause that something to exist. This implies that existence is a property. When Descartes claims that something exists, he is saying that it is existing, whether it is in actual reality or simply in his mind. This applies to all of us when we claim something exists, whether real or not. Therefore, simply claiming something to exist doesn't "add anything to the concept of a thing" (Nolan). Therefore when Descartes claims God to exist, he doesn't really add anything more to the concept of God, but rather "simply affirming that there is an object answering to the concept of God" (Nolan).
All in all, Descartes's Trademark Argument did not end up being a valid and legitimate proof of God's existence. Descartes first claimed that there are levels of reality where properties are dependent on finite substances to exist, and finite substances exist because of an infinite substance that creates them. Furthermore, Descartes implies his Causal Adequacy principle, which states that properties exist because finite substances cause them to exist, and finite substances are caused by infinite substances; in addition, finite substances can cause finite substances to exist. To Descartes, God is the infinite substance, the eternal and omnipotent being that has caused everything else to exist. He supports this by stating that it is not possible, according to the Causal Adequacy and Levels of Reality principles, that he, a finite substance, could have thought of God, an infinite substance, and thus God has implanted the idea into Descartes, as an innate idea. However, his Causal Adequacy principle and the Levels of Reality principle have both been proven to be false. The Causal Adequacy principle could not apply because substances do not need to have the same properties as what caused them to exist. Also, the Levels of Reality principle is also false because Descartes implies that substances exist because of "more real" substances, but how can something exist more than another? Things cannot exist more or less than one another. Since these two principles are false, his claim of God's existence is also false. In addition, there are objections to Descartes's claims of God's existence, simply due to the fact that just because we claim something to exist, doesn't mean we have added anything to the concept of the object in question. This is to counter Descartes's Principle of Clear and Distinct Perception, which states that whatever one clearly perceives and understands, must be true. Furthermore, Descartes hasn't completely bridged his representational reality and formal reality. So there is no transition from thought within the mind to object outside of the mind. Thus, since there was much objection and fallacy to Descartes's theories and principles, it has been concluded that his "proof" of God's existence does nothing to actually prove the existence, but only further affirms the concept. God's existence remains in question.


References
Skirry, Justin. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2015. .

Nolan, Lawrence. "Descartes' Ontological Argument". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., 19 June 2001. Web. 09 Dec. 2015. .