Aquinas and Descartes View of Knowledge

From that single observation he deduces a rule that he will build his entire argument upon. Descartes notices that the idea of his existence is very clear and distinct in his mind; based upon this clarity, and the fact that he has just determined his own existence, he infers that the things that he sees as very clear and very distinct are all true.

René Descartes believed that the mind and body are separate; that the senses could not always be trusted, but that because we as humans are able to think about our existence, we possess some sort of entity separate than our fleshly body. I believe this separate entity to be a soul”an immaterial and

As Descartes defines the mind and body, as clearly and distinctly separate entities with mental and physical properties, only when considered separately from each other. But then they cannot without irrationality also be considered as united, for this would be to consider them at the same time as two different and one single substance, which, as Descartes admits,

Descartes’ argue that mind is better known than body by first claiming humans as fundamentally rational, meaning “a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling,” ( Descartes, 19) he therefore argues that humans have the ability to know their proper minds clearly and distinctly. He proposes the conception of the mind where the imagination and the senses are also inherent capabilities of the body (faculties), specifically powers of the mind.

This essay attempts to explain Descartes’ epistemology of his knowledge, his “Cogito, Ergo Sum” concept (found in the Meditations), and why he used it [the cogito concept] as a foundation when building his structure of knowledge. After explaining the concept I give a brief evaluation of his success in introducing and using this cogito as a foundation. Finally, I provide reasons why I think Descartes succeeded in his epistemology.

Descartes then goes on to assume that there is a God, who is all powerful, and created this world; yet he asks, "How do I know that He has not brought it to pass that there is no earth, no heaven, no extended body, no magnitude, no place, and that nevertheless they seem to me to exist just exactly as I know see them?" (Descartes, p.76, par.5) Without a guarantee of reality, maybe all of his previous beliefs are false. Descartes doubts the supreme goodness of a God that would let him be deceived even occasionally. Moreover, if a perfect God does not exist then it becomes probable that Descartes himself is increasingly imperfect and therefore is constantly being misled. "If, however, it is contrary to His goodness to have made me such that I constantly deceive myself, it would also appear contrary to His goodness to permit me to be sometimes deceived, and nevertheless I cannot doubt that he does permit this." (Descartes, p.76, par.5) Descartes assumes the scenario that God is really an "evil demon".

In this paper, I will compare and contrast Descartes’ and Berkeley’s beliefs on the source of human knowledge and how it relates to their definitions of absolute truth. According to Descartes, the source of human knowledge is found only through thinking, because our senses deceive us. Absolute truth, for Descartes, is objective fact established through deductive reasoning. Berkeley, on the other hand, believes that human knowledge originates from perception and that absolute fact is one’s perceptions of the material world. In this paper I will explore Descartes’ and Berkeley’s opposing views on the origin of human knowledge and their respective definitions of absolute truth. First, I will describe both philosophers’ explanation of the source of human knowledge. Then I will contrast their definitions of absolute truth, and explore how each philosopher uses their respective sources of human knowledge to find this absolute truth.

In Descartes Objection and Replies the idea of knowledge, how it is gained and defined, and the idea of true intellect are discussed. Through the use of the wax experiment true intellect is found, defined, and explained. With this being said he wanted to demonstrate how none of the truths we found through basic perceptive tools or senses can be relied upon and that you had to utilize deep though or knowledge to know how something is defined or even if it exists.

In conclusion, this paper has explained Descartes view on bodies and animals, and analyzed whether Descartes believed that animals had minds. Explanation of Descartes view of minds and bodies has been provided, indicating that he believed that the mind and body were “tightly jointed”, as well as, his view of how the body would act without a mind. From these explanations, we have been able to conclude and explain why that Descartes would believe that animal do have minds.

He finds it plausible that we are all living in a dream and we have never experienced reality. He can no longer give any credence to his senses and finds himself in a place of complete uncertainty. Descartes comes to the conclusion that nothing can be perceived more easily and more evidently than his own mind. He has discovered that even bodies are not accurately perceived by the senses or the faculty of imagination, and are only accurately being perceived by the intellect. He also realizes that they are not distinguished through being touched, smelled, or tasted, but by being understood alone. (An apple is an apple because our mind tells us that it is an apple.) It is the faculty of reason that gives the knowledge and lets the mind know the truths and essences of objects. Descartes assumes that all of us can be decided by our senses, someone can see something far away, and then discover that is not what we thought it was. Or even a oar when is immerse half in water attempt to be bent, but instead is straight. Descartes think that we cannot always be sure of what we sense, and gives the example of himself seated by the fire.

The distinction between formal and objective reality should be laid out from the beginning in order to grasp Descartes’ argument. When talking about the forms of reality, Descartes is differentiating between two ways of existing; mostly being independent or dependent to exist. Formal reality reflects the degree of independence in something’s existence. In other words, the more formal reality something has, the fewer things it needs to exist. Formal reality can be applied to everything, in different degrees, however. As for objective reality, it can only be applied to ideas as it basically is a representation of something; an object of thought. With this being said, an objective reality of an idea is equal to the formal reality of the thing that the idea is about.

With the emergence of the scientific revolution in the 17th century, views of society and nature were transformed throughout Europe. There were great developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry. The world and its views were changing, and with that change, came a new change in thought, a new change in philosophy. Apart from ancient Greek philosophy, which was centered on finding order in a vast variety of things by searching for a fundamental amalgamating principle, Descartes sought to establish order via some fundamental division. Descartes understands and expresses that what we know about our mind is more definite than what we know about the world outside our mind. Descartes’

Descartes’s theory of knowledge is essentially based in skepticism. He argued that in order to understand the world, first a person has to completely suspend their judgements of the world around them. This is the impression that the world makes on their mind. In this way, the physical world is not what leads to knowledge. Instead, the mind finds rationally seeks knowledge. The question is, essentially, “should we believe beyond the evidence?” (Kessler, 2013, p. 332). In this way, the ideas are rooted in the nature of doubt. This is an inherent nature of the mind, which is the result of the nature of man as made by God. In this way, the mind is guided by god towards knowledge in its infallible ability to reason about reality. In this way, the mind’s reasoning ability, even in the absence of physical reality, can ultimately lead to knowledge. I don’t fully agree with Descartes’ proposition that only the mind can produce certain knowledge and that our senses are constantly under the attack and being deceive by some evil deceiver. In order to go against Descartes propositions concerning about doubt I will use Locke to oppose it.

1.) Thomas Aquinas believes that humans are born with a clean slate in a state of potency and acquire knowledge through sense experiences by abstraction of the phantasms. His view on how man acquires knowledge rejects Plato’s theory that humans are born with innate species. Along with Plato’s theory of humans understanding corporeal things through innate species, Aquinas also rejects Plato’s theory that in being born with innate species, humans spend their lives recollecting their knowledge.

Descartes is a rationalist about knowledge, so that means he believes that it is possible to gain knowledge through our mind and that we have the ability to know things that we have never seen or experienced before.(Descartes, 1641) He believes that everyone is born with the inherent ability to know two things; mathematics and God. He argues that we have the ability to infer mathematic skills from our minds. (Pismenny, 2016) He also says that we are born with the idea of God and religion already in our minds and that God is responsible for