...Skepticism According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, skepticism can be defined, as the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain. While numerous philosophers have discussed skepticism in detail over the course of time, perhaps no argument is more popular than that of Rene Descartes. Descartes, a French Philosopher of the 16th and 17th centuries, revolutionized the idea in his 1641 doctrine Meditations on First Philosophy by forcing himself to believe that everything he knew to be true, such as his morals and beliefs. While an obscure thought, he attempted to create a unique set of beliefs that were entirely true, and explained such in Meditation 1 when he said, “Several years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation.” In this quote, Descartes explains how he was led to believe things are true, for example the popular moral that a child can be anything he or she wanted, and sought to fix his belief system to the core. By taking on such a task, he created numerous ideals for skepticism. One of the first ideals of Descartes writings is that we can question reality because one can no decipher...
Words: 550 - Pages: 3
...and the attainment of truth. Historical figures such as Plato, Descartes, and Emerson sought answers to daunting questions of: ‘What is truth?’; ‘What is reality?’; ‘How is wisdom acquired?’ Many scholars believe these philosophers presented conflicting viewpoints: Plato encouraging skepticism among all previous historical, cultural, and personal perspectives; Descartes questioning definitions of reality and his very existence; Emerson encouraging self-trust and confidence in one’s ideals, opinions, and convictions. Surprisingly, reconciliation can be reached from these three differing hypotheses. Emerson’s thesis merely expounds from Descartes and Plato’s philosophies. He builds from Descartes’ search for self-identity and reconciles Plato’s skepticism with his views of self-trust and unconformity among scholars. Throughout “Mediations I and II”, Descartes disputes definitions of reality and identity, establishing a precursor to Emerson’s philosophy. Initially, Descartes questions all notions of being. In “Mediation I”, Descartes begins his argument explaining the senses which perceive reality can be deceptive and “it is wiser not to trust entirely to any thing by which we have once been deceived” (Descartes 59). But, he then continues to reason; “opinions [are] in some measure doubtful…and at the same time highly probable, so that there is much more reason to believe in than to deny them” (Descartes 62). Descartes maintains trust within his established personal beliefs though...
Words: 1008 - Pages: 5
...René Descartes was a famous French mathematician, scientist, and philosopher. He was arguably known as the "Father of Modern Philosophy." Descartes published many works of mathematics and philosophy throughout his life. In one of his most important works, Meditations on First Philosophy, he added a number of arguments for and against skepticism. Skepticism is the doubt about the truth of something and that absolute knowledge is not possible. Like past famous philosophers before him, Plato and Parmenides, Descartes believed that "evidence from the senses was inadequate to prove the kind of justification required for a claim of knowledge." In the first of Rene Descartes Meditations, he provided arguments for the skeptical position. He realized that, based off his senses, he had accepted many false opinions as true and that everything he afterwards built upon his opinions could only be doubtful and uncertain. In his project, a quest for knowledge, he decided to disregard and discard all beliefs that were based on any evidence which could be doubted and proven as less than certain. He wanted to create a new, firm foundation. He decided to go about this project because he, like other famous philosophers, believed that much of what is believed is based on ones senses. Descartes noticed that his senses had often deceived him and it was prudent to trust completely in what has deceived a person even once. Aside from deceiving senses, Descartes was also reminded that everyone has dreamed...
Words: 682 - Pages: 3
...2014 Rene Descartes: Mediations on First Philosophy Rene Descartes, known as one of the most influential philosophers of his time, is famously quoted to have been proven the existence of himself with the infamous statement, Cogito ergo sum or (in English) I think, therefore I am. Rene Descartes has claimed to have proven his own existence in this world by claiming that he is in fact a thinking thing, and that therefore he must be something that exists. This raises the question, how can Descartes truly prove to us that in fact he thinks, and how can he prove that since he thinks he therefore can say that he exists? In this essay I will be explaining the reasoning’s of proof as to why Descartes says that he thinks and that therefore he exists, and I will give sufficient support as to why Rene Descartes is in fact correct about his claims that he has stated in his Philosophy of Mediations. The evidence that I will be providing in support for Descartes statement I think, therefore I am include, Descartes doubtfulness of all things he once believed to be true (which he says has been false lies to have been told to him all of his life) (A. w. Bailey, First Philosphy, Second Edition 26-28), secondly his three proofs for his skepticism mentioned in the first piece of evidence listed previously (Descartes asking if he is dreaming or if he is really awake, his painters argument of how dream like/ images arise from real things, and an evil like demon trying to trick Rene Descartes into thinking...
Words: 1853 - Pages: 8
...body or mind and brain—are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing. Descartes calls the mind a thing that thinks and not an extended thing. He defines the body as an extended thing and not a thing that thinks. Descartes said that every material thing is defined by having extension. Which is another way of saying: it occupies space. Moreover it cannot share that space with another things. Even water or gas can be reduced to particles, and then you find they are extended things. So each occupies a unique portion of space. One of his argument for dualism is the argument for the soul. This argument states that you can doubt your your body, because of the dream argument, but you cannot doubt your mind. He had 2 arguments for skepticism: the dream argument, which involves sensory beliefs, and the evil genius argument, which are reasons based beliefs, specifically claiming that a God is powerful enough to deceive you. Descartes recalls that sometimes he has had perceptual experiences while dreaming that are exactly like those he has had while awake. Reflecting on this, Descartes concludes that “there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep.” This leads him to doubt almost everything that he believes on the basis of sense perception, including his belief that he now has hands. The dream argument tells us that sensory are not trustworthy bc what makes you think rn that you are sititng at a classroom? Well, music, etc. But...
Words: 817 - Pages: 4
...Plato Vs. Descartes Plato lived in a time of decline of the Greek aristocracy. He was discouraged by both the "mob" (majority rule) and the "elite" (group of nobles) in his country (Johansen 22). He felt that majority rule was irrational and volatile because the average person lacked knowledge and self-restraint, making decisions from emotional responses based on desire and sentiment (Johansen 25). When is comes to metaphysics, Plato’s Theory of the Forms is by far the nucleus of it. For Plato, Forms are timeless essence or entities that rule the well being of a person. Also according to Plato, Forms are transcendental because they depend on the declaration that there is a plane of being outside of our ordinary existence (Tovar 10). Plato divided metaphysics into four levels of reality and four epistemological ways of apprehending the Forms. The four levels of reality are images, sensible objects, lower forms, and higher forms (Tovar 22). The four epistemological ways of apprehending are imagination, perception, reasoning and understanding. When is comes to his epistemology, he tied his dualistic notion of being and becoming. Being is said to be unchangeable and becoming is the way the world appears. Plato though that whatever is relative and always shifting could not be true. So basically Plato is saying the becoming is something that is not real. When it comes to truth and knowledge, these two things are found in another realm of reality. For Descartes metaphysics...
Words: 1010 - Pages: 5
...motivated by Descartes’s epistemological constraint? Descartes’ epistemological constraint is “if I know that P then that P cannot be doubted.” According to Descartes “undermining the foundations will cause whatever has been built upon them to crumble of its own accord (pg.14)” which is a big part of Descartes’ beliefs. This method leads to the first stage of doubt which is the fallinist argument, the argument against the senses. “I have noticed that the senses are sometimes deceptive (pg.14). “The senses aren’t always correct. However the senses don not deceive you when you are next “To the fire, wearing my winter dressing gown (pg. 14).” Your senses aren’t always deceiving you in this situation unless you were crazy or maybe have mental problems. This rejoinder leads to the second stage of doubt, which is the dream argument. This argument explains how “there are no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep (pg. 14).” Sometimes in our dreams we feel pain and pleasure the same way as in reality. Sometimes we can’t even tell the difference between dreams and reality. However in a dream or reality the limitation is arithmetic and geometric. Whether you’re awake or asleep “two plus three makes five and a square does not have more than four sides (pg. 15).” So this concludes the math and geometry is always right whether in a dream or reality. This leads to the third stage of doubt, which is the voluntarist argument. One that “Namely that there exist a God (pg...
Words: 1495 - Pages: 6
...Descartes introduced his evil genius doubt in his first meditations. His hypothesis consists of the belief that a supreme being, labeled the “evil genius” or “evil demon” could be maliciously controlling and creating in our minds an illusion of the world as we know it. A complete fabrication that would negate the simplest truths as well as our sense data. His initial goal is to find a way to question the unquestionable; what we view as absolute truths like a simple addition or substraction, what seems to be true and tested could be false because of this powerful and cunning genius. Descartes uses his evil demon argument on his quest to find truths that are unshakably true; that is, that have absolutely no doubt to them. His conclusion is that the only statement that can be unshakably and undeniably true is “I am, I exist”. Which is to say that if we are capable of having thoughts about our existence then we must exist in some way. Even if an evil genius is maliciously pumping information and illusions about the physical world that we live in, if I can think about my existence then I must exist in some way, wether it be in this world or in the evil genius’s world. I believe that Descartes’s evil genius argument is successful at its goal is to isolate what is absolutely and undoubtedly true. Descartes felt that during his lifetime many things he thought to be true turned out false over the years. Therefore he felt that he needed to use every...
Words: 335 - Pages: 2
...and Possibility Without God: On Descartes Conceivability Argument In the sixth meditation of his Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes advances an argument for establishing a form of dualism. The argument, dubbed the ‘conceivability argument’, attempts to establish a ‘real distinction’ between the mind and the body by linking the conceivability of such a distinction with the possibility of said distinction. For Descartes, two things are ‘really distinct’ when they can exist separately. In this paper I will first outline Descartes argument, then question the place of God in the argument. I will next propose an argument for conceivability entailing possibility, consider an objection to the argument, and ultimately conclude that the ‘conceivability argument’ for the real distinction between the mind and body is viable without the necessity of God to providing a link between conceivability and possibility. Descartes begins his argument by stating ‘everything which I clearly and distinctly understand is capable of being created by God so as to correspond exactly with my understanding of it’ (54). This seems to be the critical premise of his argument, and it functions in several ways in his argument. First, it seems to establish a connection between what is conceivable and what is possible. Descartes seems to believe that if he can conceive of something, then God can make it such that what he conceives can be the case in reality. So for Descartes, the connection between conceivability...
Words: 1889 - Pages: 8
...TOPIC 1: Do you really know anything? With reference to Descartes’ first meditation justify your answer in full and respond to possible objections. A belief is any opinion or any view whether you are committed to the view or not. Thus, if you know something, you are entitled to believe in it. The subjective nature of knowledge partly is based on the idea that beliefs are things that individuals have and those beliefs are either justified or not justified (Pardi, 2011). However, Descartes notices that over the course of his life, he has from time to time accepted false beliefs and the falsity of these beliefs have influenced other beliefs. Thus, Descartes aim in his first meditation is to find out if what we know is truly correct (Blackburn, 1999:15). Once we have figured out what beliefs are beyond any possible doubt, it is suggested that we can use reason to deduce the rest of what is knowable (Pardi, 2011). There are three conditions when one can say they know something is true (Pardi, 2011). Firstly, you believe in something, secondly, it is in fact true and lastly you are justified in believing a statement is true. Of course it is possible that there are no complete unshakeable truths, it is also possible that we might discover that our prejudices cannot be detached or that the beliefs we think are our grounds for all our other beliefs are not really ultimate at all. For this reason, it is why rationalist say that knowledge comes from within, the only beliefs we can...
Words: 1630 - Pages: 7
...form of a well composed argument for your reader in support of your conclusion. Renee Descartes was born to Joachim Descartes and Jeanne Brochard on March 31st 1596 in La Haye, France he was first credited with being “the father of Modern Philosophy”. Throughout Descartes years of study he was plague by the decision to question how much of his knowledge were true and how much were false. He set out to establish a system of knowledge on a foundation of beliefs whose truth could not be doubted. Descartes basic strategy was to consider anything false that present even the slightest doubt. This form of doubt is called the “hyperbolic doubt” and serves to clear the way for what Descartes considers as the unprejudiced truth. It was from this point that Descartes sets out in search for what lies beyond all doubts. Throughout this philosophy essay I will divulge more into what foundationalism is and how it attempts to address the problem of the infinite regress with respect to justification. Foundationalism has a long history; some view it as a structure of justification that we consider as a factor of what we take for granted based on knowledge. Foundationalism can also be defined as the search for the first cause; the search for beliefs that can serve as justifications for other beliefs, it is like searching for the truth; to a foundationalist knowledge is dependent upon justification. The idea of justifying what we belief and how we come to belief what we know puts us in a position...
Words: 1506 - Pages: 7
...Philosophers sometimes view the idea of human freedom of action as the real problem of free will, but this classification is one of the main misunderstandings in both subject matters. The misunderstanding between freedom and free will may have begun as early as the time when Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, argued their cases to support the theory of the modern concept of compatibilism. From both Hobbes’ and Hume’s perspective, to be free to act on one's will is basically to be free of external restrictions, limitations, constraints, and controls. From their perspective, the absence any external constraint gives makes the agent freedom to do as he or she wills, even if the person’s will itself is determined (or predetermined) by causal laws of nature. Factors That Affect Personal Development Take a moment to consider all of the genetic and environmental factors that have shaped who you are today, and you will quickly become overwhelmed. From gender, race, and socioeconomic background—to family dynamics, education, and genetics—there are millions of factors that have converged to make you who you are. Most people believe that humans are responsible for their own actions and that they all have the opportunity to make the right choices. But when you consider how large a role race, gender, wealth, and family upbringing all play in shaping an individual, can you truly believe that everyone has the same opportunities? Furthermore, are there some conditions under which people cannot...
Words: 1945 - Pages: 8
...person if not because of his teacher, Aristotle. But being partly hellenized, he saw Hellenization as an admirable sovereign strategy because for him, it could help build unify his expanding dominion. One of the hellenistic philosophies which prevailed during the Hellenistic period was Stoicism, which gives much credence on what the individual should do to become a better person-to become a wise, just person. One notable Stoic was Marcus Aurelius who was a Roman emperor. The stoics believed that in order for us to be better, people who are just and wise, we must train our impulses which influences how we behave. We must always be in harmony with our nature. Another Hellenistic philosophy that existed during that period was skepticism. The skeptics uphold that humans must refrain from believing all dogmas. Nothing can be really known. Rene Descartes and Michel de Montaigne were only few among the many who took as the starting point of their quest for knowledge the skeptical...
Words: 1571 - Pages: 7
...Distinction Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It explores how knowledge can be acquired and considers its limits and validity. Rationalism and empiricism are distinct epistemological schools of thought. Among others, they differ significantly regarding the source of concepts and ideas. Prominent rationalists, including Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, argue that one must rely on reason as a purely deductive process to attain justified truths about reality (Cottingham 1988). In contrast, empiricists, including Locke, Berkeley and Hume, argue that knowledge is derived from the role of experience and sense data to formulate ideas. The question of what is the ideal foundation of knowledge is still debatable to date. I will argue that the rationalist vs. empiricist distinction is not exhaustive, and that carefully considering the approach-discipline relationship is crucial. In order to support this claim, this essay will discuss differences between rationalism and empiricism. Next, it will closely examine the advantages of each, drawing on the works of René Descartes and David Hume. Finally, this essay will identify problems with both theories and argue that reason and experience can together generate factual knowledge with respect to the subject matter. The major difference between rationalism and empiricism concerns their knowledge basis. Francis Bacon has articulated this distinction in stating that "empiricists are like ants; they...
Words: 1768 - Pages: 8
...epistemology. Although there are several principle issues in epistemology, my areas of focus are, empiricism, rationalism, Skepticism, and Justification. Empiricism is the theory that experience is the main focus in giving us knowledge of the world. Empiricists believe that knowledge without personal experience is impossible. Some empiricist believe that a new born baby come into the world knowing nothing and everything that they learn is only by experience. The mind is furnished with information from experience. The concept that all knowledge is arrived from the senses, leads me to believe that empiricist think that it is unreasonable to talk about things we have not experienced. Most radical empiricists believe that religions have no concrete evidence and consequently religious beliefs are insignificant. In essence, empiricism requires solid physical evidence to be considered knowledge. In contrast to empiricism, rationalism is the belief that reasoning is the most important aspect of acquiring knowledge. Rationalists believe that we have some instinctive knowledge. Certain things we just know with having personal experience directly disputes the theory that empiricists believe about newborn babies. Rationalists also believe that some truths can be worked out without having a real life experience such as mathematics and ethics. Another argument that rationalists make is dealing with aesthetics. It is possible to get to different results from the same artwork based...
Words: 559 - Pages: 3
