René Descartes, 4^th Meditation offers the author’s reflection on his capability to view and comprehend the world around him. Generally, the book provides deeper insight into the nature of God and human existence, including the existence of error in human cognition. In his reflection, Descartes analyzes the nature of error and also places humans between God and total non-beings. Ultimately, this paper seeks to examine the meaning of error according to Descartes’s reasoning in the excerpt, why it is significant that Descartes places humans between God and total non-being or nothingness, and to explain whether this placement adds to our comprehension of error in any way.

Descartes describes “error” as a defect. He asserts, “thus do I recognize that error, is so far as it is such, is not a real thing depending on God but simply a defect” (Descartes 20). The author further discusses that he is not satisfied with the defect explanation. Thus, he reasons that an error is not entirely imperfection, but it is the deficiency of knowledge that ought to be present. As evident in Meditation four, “for error is not a pure negation, i.e., is not the dimple defect or want of some perfection which ought not to be mine, but it is lack of some knowledge which it seems that I ought to possess” (Descartes 20). Thus it is apparent that the reasoning provided in the excerpt describes an error as a lack of knowledge. The author also reasons that “error” is not something that is real or positive. Instead, it is a privation, a negation of the that a person ought to possess. In other words, Descartes describes it as not a substance or a separate entity; rather, it is a state where an individual lacks specific comprehension knowledge. In Meditation Four, this error originates from the finite nature of faculties possessed by humans, which are the shortcomings of the intellect and the impact of the will in impacting judgments. The book also points out that this error results from the finite nature of human faculties but is not a consequence of God’s deception. The God-given intellect is limited in that it can only see a section of reality. It is this limitation that causes the chances of an error to happen. Overall, an error is the deficiency or privation of knowledge that humans possess.

In Meditation 4, Descartes places human beings between God and total non-being or nothingness. Evidently, “I am in a sense something intermediate between God and nought; i.e., placed in a manner between the supreme being and non-being” (Descartes 20). It is significant that Descartes put humans in this position to point out their dual nature and ontological status. Regarding ontological status, the author emphasizes that humans are God-created beings separate from God but have limited qualities. On the other hand, humans are also incomplete non-beings, hence stressing the distinct nature of the existence of humans. As per the author also, when humans are created, they possess a portion of nothingness or non-being (Descartes 20). This is to say that humans are finite and imperfect compared to their creator. It is this finite nature that makes humans prone to error. In addition, individuals also possess a share of existence, differentiating them from total non-being, prompting the dual nature. Thus, the significance of the positioning accentuates the dual existence of humans and their imperfections. Apart from the ontological status and dual existence, it is significant that Descartes places humans in the aforementioned position to zero in on the enormous difference between God and human beings. As evident in Meditation 4, God has perfection and is infinite. On the contrary, human beings are finite and possess limitations. Descartes asserts, “for in the first place, knowing that my nature is extremely feeble and limited and that the nature of God is the contrary immense, incomprehensible and infinite” (Descartes 20). This clearly points out the variance between the supreme being and humans, whereby God’s nature is infinite while the nature of humans is feeble and finite, making them prone to making mistakes.

To a greater extent, this adds to our understanding of error as the positioning of humans between God and nothingness offers the context for comprehending the nature and roots of error. For instance, placing humans in this position illuminates the finite and imperfect nature of humans. Contrary to the supreme being, humans share limitations and are imperfect (Descartes 21). Thus, this placement points out the general fallibility in human cognition, hence highlighting why errors may happen. Similarly, this reasoning posits that errors are natural impacts of limitations and lack of thorough comprehension among humans, thus pointing out the roots of error. Likewise, the aforementioned positioning underscores the dual nature of humans. Evidently, humans are not entirely non-existent and, at the same time, are finite and imperfect, unlike God. This creates tension in human existence between their finite nature and their pursuit of knowledge, prompting the possibility of errors in their thinking. This offers insight into the nature of error; hence adds to our comprehension of nature. In addition, the human placement also highlights their difference with God. The difference illuminates the source of humans’ fallibility and the susceptibility to make errors in their comprehension and judgments. Besides understanding the source of error, the difference between the perfect God and humans with limitations offers an insight into the elements that prompt errors in human cognition. Overall, this adds significantly to our understanding of error by providing insight into its source, nature, and components that lead to errors.

To sum up, it is evident that according to reasoning in Meditation 4, error refers to the absence of some knowledge among humans. Similarly, it is also significant that the author places humans in the aforementioned position to zero in on their dual nature and ontological status. In addition, Descartes also puts humans in the position to illuminate the variance between infinite God and finite humans. On the other hand, this placement contributes more to our understanding of error. Apparently, the positioning helps us comprehend that errors originate from limitations and deficiencies in human thinking. This further offers insight into why errors happen, their nature, and the factors prompting errors.