Introduction 1. Descartes begins his 'Meditations' as a global sceptic: he does not know whether he exists, nor whether the external world exists. 2. He uses intuition and deduction to develop axioms beginning the cogito, which confirms his own existence. 3. Using his method, he confirms other claims, such as the fact that God exists, and the external world. 4. Descartes' foundationalist approach, relying only on a priori intuition and deduction, renders his theory immune from the uncertainty of experiences 5. Each stage of Descartes' method however, also has criticisms. 6. The weakest issue is criticism from Hume and others against Descartes' use of 'I' in the cogito 7. The strongest criticism is based on the use of the causal principle in Descartes' Trademark argument for God, which was his most important argument for God. 8. Descartes fails to prove the existence of God. His proof of the external world relies on the notion of God so also fails. 9. So Descartes' meditations only succeed in a trivial way, proving his existence and nothing else, which leads to solipsism. First issue: Against the 'I' in the cogito 1. Descartes' cogito goes as follows: 1. I am doubting 2. Which means I am thinking 3. If I am thinking, that means I am existing 3. Descartes uses intuition - grasping clear and distinct ideas immediately without any process of reasoning - to reach the clear and distinct idea that he exists 4. Various criticisms have been levelled against this argument 5. Hume would say that it fails as it assumes a constant 'I'. 6. HUme would argue that there is no constant self, as if there was impressions would be constant and invariable 7. This is not the case, therefore, there is no constant self. 8. Therefore, there is no constant self 9. Descartes can escape this criticism by saying that it is clear and distinct that thoughts require a thinker 2nd issue: The causal principle 1. Descartes uses the trademark argument prove God 1. I have an idea of God 2. The cause of anything must by as real as it's effect 3. Therefore my idea of God must be caused by something as perfect as it 4. That is God 3. All versions of this argument are disproved by Hume's fork (nothing can be logically proved unless the contrary will be a contradiction; God not existing is not a contradiction so cannot be logically proved 4. Probably talk before this about another argument against it, just to add words i.e., attacking the causal principle, before dismantling the previous argument THird issue automatically fails as HIme's fork applies to it as well Conclusion: Just summarise