Make a critique in a more diagnostic mode: granted that many arguments have gone wrong,

identify how an argument has gone wrong and set it right. Be sure to consider the significance

of the new path you have set the argument on—for instance, how does it impact the broader

goals of the Meditations? If the correction impedes the larger goals, what is the significance

of that? Are the broader goals bad too? How?

In his fifth meditation of "Meditations on First Philosophy," Descartes lays out several

arguments aimed at proving the existence of God for the purpose of providing a metaphysical

foundation for building a rational inquiry into scientific discovery.

Central to Descartes' argument is the notion of innate ideas. Descartes posits that certain ideas,

such as the concept of perfection or God, are inherent to human understanding and do not rely

on sensory experience for their existence. He presents his idea through first reflecting on the

existence of certain ideas that seem to be present in the mind from birth, “it seems that I am

not so much learning something new as remembering what I knew before.” Descartes goes on

to explicitly address the idea of God later in the meditation when he presents his arguments for

his existence.

Descartes argues that this innate idea cannot be a product of sensory experience or human

invention but must instead originate from a perfect and infinite being, which he identifies as

God, “certainly the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one which I find within me just
as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it exists is no less

clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property

belongs to its nature.”

Furthermore, in the third meditation, he distinguishes between formal reality, which pertains to

the existence of things in the external world, and objective reality, which refers to the reality of

ideas in the mind. Descartes argues that a perfect being, by definition, must possess both

infinite formal and objective reality. This concept serves as a crucial element in his ontological

argument, as it underscores the necessity of God's existence.

However, within its conception, Descartes' ontological argument encounters a significant

objection: the contention that existence cannot be treated as a predicate. It can be argued that

existence does not add anything to the concept of an object. This poses a challenge to

Descartes' argument, as it calls into question the validity of his reasoning. This objection

suggests that existence cannot be treated as a predicate because it does not add anything to

the essence or nature of an object. In other words, existence does not contribute to the

properties or qualities that define an object. Rather, it simply signifies whether the object is

instantiated in reality or not. Kant, for example, argued that existence is not a property or

characteristic that can be attributed to an object in the same way as other predicates, such as

color or size.
Instead, existence is the necessary condition for an object to have any properties or qualities at

all. Therefore, existence cannot be considered as an attribute that adds to the perfection or

essence of a being. The objection maintains that existence is not a predicate in the same sense

as other attributes because it does not contribute to the object’s essense. Instead, existence is a

necessary condition for the instantiation of any properties or qualities, making it distinct from

other predicates in philosophical discourse. This objection poses a significant challenge to

Descartes' ontological argument.

To address this objection and set the argument right, Descartes could delve deeper into the

nature of existence and its relation to perfection. By incorporating the concepts of unlimited

objective and formal reality, Descartes could offer a more robust justification for why existence

is inseparable from perfection. Descartes could argue that the idea of God, as a supremely

perfect being, possesses unlimited objective reality. This implies that the idea of God represents

the highest degree of reality possible, surpassing all other ideas in terms of completeness.

However, Descartes could further assert that such a lofty and perfect idea cannot originate

from a lesser source; it must stem from a being with corresponding formal reality. Here,

Descartes could assert that the concept of God's existence is inseparable from his perfection.

Since God is defined as a being possessing in all perfections, including existence, the idea of

God necessarily entails existence. In other words, if the idea of God represents the pinnacle of

perfection, it must include existence as a fundamental aspect, as existence is a necessary

attribute of perfection. Thus, the unlimited objective reality of the idea of God necessitates the

corresponding formal reality of God's existence.

By integrating these concepts, Descartes could provide a more robust justification for why

existence is inseparable from perfection. The idea of God, with its unlimited objective reality,

demands a corresponding formal reality in the existence of God Himself. This perspective

strengthens Descartes' ontological argument by illuminating the connection between existence

and perfection, thereby addressing the objection that existence cannot be treated as a

predicate.

By pursuing this alternative path and rectifying his argument, Descartes not only effectively

counters objections but also profoundly influences the overarching objectives of the

"Meditations on First Philosophy." Descartes' primary aim is to forge a pathway toward

absolute certainty and truth through rational inquiry.

Within this philosophical framework, demonstrating the existence of God assumes paramount

importance. It serves as a pivotal milestone in Descartes' task of establishing a foundation of

indubitable knowledge upon which all other truths can securely rest. By substantiating the

existence of God, Descartes not only reaffirms the coherence of his ontological argument but

also reinforces the validity of his methodological approach.

On the other hand, it could be argued that relying on philosophical proofs to establish religious

beliefs blurs the line between faith and reason and may ultimately fail to provide a satisfactory

basis for knowledge. Additionally, if Descartes' argument is unable to withstand scrutiny, it

could call into question the validity of his entire philosophical project and undermine the

confidence in his conclusions.