Discours de la Méthode: Sentence by Sentence Translation

Description

cf. "[Did Descartes believe arguments for Euclid's parallel postulate were cogent?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/69174/2014)"Regarding Descartes's "method of analysis or resolution," [Copleston vol. 4](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=3048) p. 75 claims> he considered [where?] that Euclidean geometry, for example, has a serious drawback, namely, that the axioms and first principles are not ‘justified’. That is to say, the geometer does not show how his first principles are reached. The method of analysis or resolution, however, ‘justifies’ the first principles of a science by making it clear in a systematic manner how they are reached and why they are asserted.[*Discourse on Method* pt. 4](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm#part4):> I perceived that there was nothing at all in these [geometry] demonstrations which could assure me of the existence of their object […] [I]t is at least as certain that God, who is this Perfect Being, is, or exists, as any demonstration of geometry can be.> je pris garde aussi qu'il n'y avait rien du tout en elles [démonstrations de géométrie] qui m'assurât de l'existence de leur objet […] il est pour le moins aussi certain que Dieu, qui est cet être si parfait, est ou existe, qu'aucune démonstration de géométrie le saurait être.In fact, he seems to consider it more certain, as his previous ¶ shows, where he gives a sort of Anselm ontological argument and shows that only his idea of God cannot be doubted; it is his *fundamentum inconcussum veritatis* , "unshakeable foundation of truth"; cf. Deely's [*Four Ages*](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=4151) p. 513-518 // PDF pp. 548-553.