Descarte`s Cartesian Doubt Essay Example For Students

Descarte`s Cartesian Doubt Essay In his first meditation, Descartes sets out with amazing clarity and persistenceto clear himself of every false idea that he has acquired previous to this, anddetermine what he truly knows. To rid him of these rotten apples hehas developed a method of doubt with a goal to construct a set of beliefs onfoundations which are indubitable. On these foundations, Descartes applies threelevels of skepticism, which in turn, generate three levels at which our thoughtsmay be deceived by error. Descartes states quite explicitly in the synopsis,that we can doubt all things which are material as long as we have nofoundations for the sciences other than those which we have had up tillnow(synopsis:12). This skepticism also implies that doubt can free us fromprejudices, enabling the mind to escape the deception of the senses, andpossibly discover a truth which is beyond doubt. The first and main deception inDescartes opinion has evolved from sense perception What ever I have uptill now accepted as mo st true I have acquired either from the senses or throughthe sense. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it isprudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us evenonce(1:18). At the root of our beliefs, Descartes argues, lie theexperiences we gain from our senses, because these are sometimes mistaken, as inthe case of mirages or objects which appear small in the distance, and becauseof this he will now forfeit all of his most reliable information . Moreimportantly it may be to follow in the steps of Plato and require knowledge thatis certain and absolute ( Prado 1992 ). This argument consists of four mainpremises: 1. All that he has accepted as true up to this point, he has acquiredby the senses or Cartesian Doubt 3 through the senses; 2. but on occasion thesesenses have been deceptive. 3. It is wise not to trust anything that has beendeceiving in the past 4. Therefore, it is possible to be mistaken abouteverything. In premise one his beliefs a re derived from the senses, such as hesees that he has a paper in his hand and concludes that it is a paper, and whatis meant by through the senses, is that his beliefs may have been based onothers sense experience. All Descartes requires for the second premise is thepossibility that he may have been deceived, for if he cannot decide which iswrong, than he must not have any knowledge. This leads to the third premisewhere it seems at least reasonable to assume, that if one has been deceivedpreviously, there is no absolute assurance that it is presently correct. Therefore, there is a chance of being deceived about everything. But manycritics will argue that several of these false percepts can be corrected bymeans of alternative senses, such as he bent stick in water example. Althoughour sight may be tricked into thinking that the mirage exists, by using thesense of touch we can correct this falseness, and uncover what truly exists. Descartes does retreat, and assess the damage from his first level by saying,there are many other beliefs about which doubt is quite impossible, eventhough they are derived from the senses-for example, that I am here, sitting bythe fire, wearing a winter dressing gown.. (1:18). Here even heobjects to the validity of his argument, even if he could be deceived aboutanything he perceives, this does not mean that he is deceived about everything. Just because his senses are unreliable at times is not proof enough thateverything in the world is false (Williams 1991). In addition to beingdelusional, Descartes believes we can be tricked by madness or insanity. Sincethose who are insane may interpret things detached from reality by means oftheir senses, how could it be denied that these hands or this whole bodyare mine? Unless perhaps I were to liken myself to madmen, whose brains are sodamaged by the persistent vapours of melancholia (1:19 ), they in factbelieve these percepts to be true. Though Descartes does go on to say suchpeople are insane, and I would be thought equally mad if I took anything fromthem as a model for myself, and continues by likening the dreams he has tothe experiences a madman faces when awake. From here Descartes makes a strongerargument for calling into question his common sense beliefs, the possibilitythat he might be dreaming, that every emotion and every sense perception appearsto him only in a dream . Since there is always a possibility that we may in factbe dreaming, this hypothesis is done to provoke his faith in reality and thesenses, to get the absolute certainty of how things may appear or feel (Prado1992). His view on this is taken from the fact that when dreaming, the sametypes of mental states and feelings are present as when we are awake, Howoften, asleep at night , I am convinced of just such a familiar event-that I amhere in my dressing-gown, sitting by the fire- when in fact I am lying undressedin bed (1:19). Since there is no absolute way in determining thewaking state from the dreaming state, when it comes to sense experience, we areno better off awake than asleep. Therefore our judgment must be suspended evenwhen we are sure that our state is that of waking because we clearly haveno reason to believe that effects resemble their causes in the waking state,since they clearly do not in the dreaming state (Prado, 1992). The onlyway we can avoid the suspension of judg ement is only if we have a standard todetermine where the truth exists (Williams 1986). To use the conflict of thestick being bent in water, what sense is it that we should believe, when we haveno tool to decipher the truth? Thus, the suspension of truth works for the doubtof he senses as well. The reason why doubting the senses is not enough to basean entirely new set of ideas, is due to the fact that it does not call intoquestion all of ones common sense beliefs, for the representations found indreams are derived from real objects, although possibly arranged in a differentway. The thoughts and feelings of a dream are real, they are the same thoughtsand feelings that occur every day in the waking state. To be afraid during adream is the same feeling experienced if . It is due to the similarities infeelings and thought between dreaming and waking, that Descartes is able to findground for doubt, there are never any sure signs by means of which beingawake can be distinguished from bei ng asleep (1:19). This than leadsto the eternal skeptical question : How can I tell whether at this momentI am awake or asleep? (Malcolm, 1967). If we take any series of thoughts,emotions or feelings, it is possible that the same series can occur whiledreaming or awake. Thus, we can never be absolutely clear on whether what we areexperiencing at that exact moment in time is a dream, or that of a waking state. Though Prado (1992) insists that Descartes states in the sixth meditation, thattemporal coherence allows us to decipher between the waking and dreaming states. The aim here then would be to prove that there is nothing in the waking state toconfirm the accuracy of sense experience. The fact that at any given moment ourcurrent state could change drastically and render the previous state anillusion, may be enough to support his skeptical nature on thus, his CartesianDoubt 6 second level of doubt (Williams 1991). As long as Descartes second levelof doubt is accepted, we are able to continue on to his third level of doubt, orwhat is known as hyperbolical doubt. Descartes considers our beliefs withindreams when he says that some beliefs remain indubitable while others are sweptaway by imagination. Such things as the laws of physics can be broken withindreams, where other concepts such as arithmetic or geometry remain unchanged:physics, astronomy, medicine and all other disciplines which depend on the studyof composite things, are doubtful; while arithmetic, geometry ans other subjectsof this kind, which deal only with the simplest and most genera l things,regardless of whether they really exist in nature or not, contain somethingcertain and indubitable. (1:20) He decides that certain things which areaccepted universally, such as mathematics, are irrefutable. The dream hypothesisis not enough to doubt such things as mathematics, as we may be dreaming thatthere appears a square in front of us, but we cannot doubt our reason, such thatit has four sides, or that there is only one square that we see and not two orthree. He moves on to discuss the origins of our beliefs, and the role of anomnipotent God. He believes that there is a God, due to the fact that this ideaof God is firmly rooted in his mind, and he also believes that thisomnipotent God would not deceive him since he is supremely good. Heexamines the assumption that God is perfect and omnipotent, and therefore thesource for all of our thoughts and ideas. Since Descartes is abandoning all ofhis old beliefs, this would suggest that God tried to deceive him. He wonderswhy s uch a perfect God would deceive him, and figures it must be doubtful. Homophobia and Hate Crimes as a Result EssayCartesian Doubt 7 Now Descartes imagines that God is not the one who isdeceiving him, but none other than a malevolent demon, who with deceitful power,implants false beliefs, I will suppose therefore that not God, who issupremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of theutmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceiveme (1:22). When determining what is open to doubt, Descartes evildemon hypothesis conveniently creates a being who is omnipotent and who uses thepower solely to deceive. What Descartes achieves is making problematic a host ofideas he entertains as products of reason , opposed to products of the senses,which the dream hypothesis takes care of (Prado 1992). Although L.G. Miller(1992) suggests that the propositions of mathematics survive the perception anddream arguments, but only to be unsettled by the deceiver God hypothesis,Could not an all-powerful demon make me believe t hose propositions aretrue when, as a matter of fact, they are not? The deceiver God does notsucceed if the person accepts that the reality he lives in is true. However,with the rise of skepticism and questioning the veracity of whether the world welive in is accurate or not, perhaps the demon has won after all. Descartes thenleaves the first meditation in a state of confusion. He knows at least howthings seem to appear to him, even if he has no idea how they really are Iam like a prisoner who is enjoying an imaginary freedom while asleep, he dreadsbeing woken up, and goes along with the pleasant as long as hecan(1:23[15). Descartes clearly refocused metaphysical thinking into thephysical world, by turning it toward the natural world. His basic structure hasfour uses of doubt, firstly to free us from preconceived opinions or prejudice,the second is to lead the mind away from the senses, the Cartesian Doubt 8 thirduse of doubt makes it impossible to have any further doubts about those thingswhich alter such an extensive doubt and are discovered to be true,while the fourth is to provide us with an understanding of what certainty is. Descartes methodological doubt can be defined as foundationalism, which is thebelief that knowledge is formed on different levels, much like an invertedpyramid. Such that, complex beliefs come first, then beneath that are simplerbeliefs and beneath them are the simplest beliefs. Foundationalism requires notonly this hierarchy effect, but also that nothing is accepted as knowledge untilwe know upon what it is based (Prado 1992). In summary of what the three mainarguments undermine, the argument from the illusion or deceptiveness of thesenses undermines ordinary sense perception. Undermining ordinary senseperception and scientific observation as well as the more theoretical parts ofthe physical sciences and hence these sciences as a whole is the dreamhypothesis, while the deceiver God hypothesis undermines the pure mathematicalsciences such as arithmetic and geometry. Descartes metaphysical doubtemphasizes purging the old falsehoods and buildings up again from the bedrock ofthe indubit able of our existence as thinkers. Whether or not the extensivenessof such skepticism used by Descartes is necessary, remains open for doubt. Butfor one to gain any knowledge what so ever, they must be capable of doubting atsome point or another, rather than accepting all that they may hear. It would beextremely credulous and naive to never doubt or question it is only natural todoubt and challenge that which one does not believe, and to a certain extent,being the natural extent, it is useful and necessary, When Descartesbegins to doubt in an epistemological mode, he cannot stop short of doubtingwhether Cartesian Doubt 9 he himself exists as a doubter (Prado 1992).. Perhaps, when the poet Charles Bukowski said the more crap you believe,the better off you are, he realized that such an extensive doubt can beharmful to the majority of people, because they are in fact betteroff believing in their senses, their God, and their ability to determinewhether they are sleeping or awake. It is possible that it may be beneficial tolive and die being deceived, and be ignorant to that deception, than to live anddie searching for truth where truth may not be found, for the true determinantto whether such an extensive skepticism is beneficial or necessary depends onthe individual. Neither Descartes nor Bukowski can speak for anyone other thanthemselves.