Descrate Idea of Salamander and God

Abstract

Overall, I verify that Descartes by having idea of a salamander does not prove that salamander exists. In the thesis, I suggested that Descartes premises used for the idea of God cannot also confirm that salamander exists. I structure the paper putting each point into each paragraph, including the conclusion at the end stating each point again. I pointed out three premises from DescartesÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦ prove of GodÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦s existence to support my answer. First, the idea of how God is infinite and salamander is finite. Second, the idea of how God would have more objective reality then the idea of a salamander, because God is more perfect then a salamander. Lastly, the idea of how our idea of God is innate and the idea of salamander is not.

God VS Salamander

I do not believe that Descartes by having the idea of a salamander would prove that a salamander really exists, because by just simply having the idea of salamander dose not mean that it truly exist. Although the idea of God and the idea of salamander would have came from the mind of Descartes, however, Descartes proved that God exists by his premises, but these premises, since they are used to prove GodÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦s existence, would not operate the same way for the idea of salamander.

If I were to compare salamanders to God, the premises Descartes used to prove that God exist dose not act on salamanders. One of DescartesÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦ premises of God is that God is an idea of a perfect being, something infinite. As stated in the Third Meditation, God is Ð'ÐŽÐ'§eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of all things that exist apart from himÐ'ÐŽKÐ'ÐŽÐ'Ё(Descartes, p.156), but the idea of a salamander did not give us that idea. Or, if I express it this way, Salamander, or a type of lizard-like amphibian, would not categorize as a perfect being, since nothing is more perfect then God. Descartes also adds that if God exists then heÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦s no deceiver, because God is infinite and perfect in all ways. Then God would give us the power to have true beliefs, to form clear and distinct ideas. Compared to salamander, there is quite a contrast. Salamander, as testified above, is finite, thus, it would not give us clear and distinct ideas as the God would. The idea of God is an idea of a perfect being, but the idea of salamander is just of a lizard-like animal. A man-eating beast cannot stand parallel to an infinite, perfect being.

The formal reality and objective reality of God and salamander are also different. Formal reality is the perfection of the actual thing. For example, a stop signÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦s formal reality is its hexagon shape and the red colored metal (First Philosophy p.144). Objective reality is the content of the actual thing itself. To use the example of the stop sign again, its objective reality is it represents the content of Ð'ÐŽÐ'§stopÐ'ÐŽÐ'Ё (First Philosophy p.144). The idea of God is formed at the top of the scale of formal reality. The idea of salamander is too formed by formal reality (because they are both ideas), but since God is at the top, salamander would be scaled less real or perfect than God, but they are both formed in their same degree of formal reality. Or, for instance, I can say God is more perfect than Descartes, but Descartes is more perfect then