User:Oludara Orederu/sandbox

I added this text and sources to the article:

"Descartes is accused of circularity regarding the Truth Rule because it appears that the Truth Rule is contingent on God’s existence.The Truth Rule states whatever I perceive to clearly and distinctly believe to belong to something truly does belong to it. The Truth Rule is contingent on God’s existence. However, we can only know of God’s existence by being able to clearly and distinctly perceive of this.  (Newman,Lex) A circular argument is one in which a premise in an argument includes with the argument’s conclusion. The cartesian circle is an error in reasoning, that has made Descartes' argument circular. Descartes is guilty of circular reasoning due to the fact that a premise of his argument is included in the conclusion of his argument because the rule of truth is contingent upon God’s existence.

The rule of truth is contingent on God’s existence. However, we can only know of God’s existence by being able to clearly and distinctly perceive of this. Another worry that arises from Arnauld’s rejection is the worry of how we can ever come to know of the foundational principles that are needed in order to have knowledge. We can only know something through the foundations of knowledge so a question of interest that arises is how does one know the foundations of knowledge (Carriero 203-204).

Antoine Arnauld is one of Descartes objectors. He objected to Descartes' argument regarding what is referred to as The Truth Rule. Arnauld accuses Descartes of circular reasoning. He says Descartes reasons in a circle because according to Descartes since we know that God exists what we clearly and distinctly perceive is true. However, according to Descartes we are certain that God exists because we can clearly and distinctly perceive this. Arnauld states that before we can come to the conclusion of God’s existence we must be sure that whatever we clearly and distinctly perceive is true. In this objection, Arnauld is stating that God’s existence cannot be used to prove that what one clearly and distinctly perceives is true. Another worry that arises from Arnauld’s rejection is the worry of how we can ever come to know of the foundational principles that are needed in order to have knowledge. We can only know something through the foundations of knowledge so a question of interest that arises is how does one know the foundations of knowledge  (Carriero 203-204)."

- I added additional text to the lead.

- I created a new section.

- I edited the lead and I added additional information to it. I also made a portion of the lead into it's own section to make the lead as concise as possible filled with only relevant information that is further explained throughout the article.

- I included an image of René Descartes.

- I included three sources.