Comparative Analysis Of Rene Descartes 's Philosophy

In Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes attempted to redefine his philosophical beliefs through a method of pure reason, disregarding all of his prior knowledge and previously accepted facts in order to find true certainty. At first, this method leads Descartes to a groundbreaking conclusion about his existence. However, his argument breaks down when he fails to truly abandon all of his prior beliefs when contemplating the existence and nature of God. David Hume opposes Descartes, postulating that the nature of God in incomprehensible to humans. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume disproves many of the arguments that claim humans can know the nature of God, including Descartes’s rationalism.

René Descartes believed that all truth could be found by rationalization, that it is not that any one person lacks the ability to come to the conclusion of truth, but that we all think differently and do not analyze situations in the same way. To understand his strategy, you must first understand the type of life that Descartes lived. Descartes was always a very intelligent person with a passion for learning. He spent much time studying in school in order to learn about truth and the world, but what he found was that he had not actually found

‘Cogito Ergo Sum,’ - ‘I think therefore I am ‘ one of the most famous and well known quotes or arguments in all of modern philosophy; a phrase instantly recognizable to all those studying in the field of philosophy. This phrase refers to an attempt by Descartes to prove with absolute certainty his own existence; a systematic way to philosophize. The argument, while first proposed by ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Saint Augustine, was utilized as an argument by French philosopher Rene Descartes in his influential text “Meditations on First Philosophy“. This argument appears in the books second meditation and provides the cornerstone for Descartes argument in the following five meditations and serves as the basis for Descartes overall metaphysical thesis, without which Descartes reasoning system would collapse. Throughout this paper I will

In order to understand Descartes’ way of thinking, it is crucial to note his education. He received a sufficient education in mathematics and science which led to his rejection of scholastic philosophy. He was not only taught about old philosophers such as Plato and Epictetus, but there was a recent philosopher [according to his time] named Montaigne who was a

In Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes philosophies made a substantial advancement in enabling us to understand the world around us by querying many of the Aristotelian doctrines that are still being discussed in philosophy today. He attempts to answer the question; can you fully trust your senses? Descartes uses methodological doubt, which is a process of being skeptical about truths of someone’s belief to revoke from his senses. In Meditation One: Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called into Doubt, he argues that people cannot rely on their senses for full truths. Descartes says we must question everything and doubt everything because everything in this world is subjective as opposed to objective. He begins to argue by saying how when he was a child he believed certain things to be true but then later found out the real truth. Within his first meditation he uses an example of dreaming to prove how our senses deceive us. In Meditation Two: Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That the Mind is More Known Than the Body, Descartes starts off by questioning God and Heaven and provides another example of the ball of wax to support his ideas of how our senses cannot be fully trusted. Descartes does a fantastic job proving that the mind and body are disconnected and therefore we cannot trust our senses.

In Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes does and experiment with wax to try to prove that things actually exist in this world. This essay is going to prove how we can tell that things actually exist and what can perceive the wax.

Rene Descartes’ third meditation from his book Meditations on First Philosophy, examines Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. The purpose of this essay will be to explore Descartes’ reasoning and proofs of God’s existence. In the third meditation, Descartes states two arguments attempting to prove God’s existence, the Trademark argument and the traditional Cosmological argument. Although his arguments are strong and relatively truthful, they do no prove the existence of God.

The reading “Rene Descartes” demonstrates that Descartes’ argument against trusting the senses is valid and that we should always distrust the senses.

The Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes is a thorough analysis about doubt. Descartes describes his method of doubt to determine whether he can truly know something. One of his major arguments is the proof of the existence of God. In this paper, I will attempt to unravel the flaws in Descartes proof that God exists.

Rene Descartes, a rationalist, said that each person contains the criteria for truth and knowledge in them. Finding truth and knowledge comes from the individual themselves, not necessarily from God. Descartes also believed that reason is the same for every single person. Descartes believed that nothing could be true unless we as humans could perceive it. He also believed that you could break down things into smaller simpler parts. Descartes also believed that there was a relationship between the mind and body. He also believed that the idea of being perfect originated from God since God himself was perfect. He also integrates his mathematical concepts into his methodology. Descartes also applied doubt to his ideas before he

Rene Descartes Meditations is known to be one of his most famous works, it has also shown to be very important in Philosophical Epistemology. Within the meditation’s he provides many arguments that remove pre-existing notions, and bring it to the root of its foundation which Descartes, then will come up with his indubitable foundation of knowledge to defeat any doubt and to prove God is real. Descartes was a “foundationalist”, by introducing a new way of knowledge and with clearing up how people thought about things prior. Descartes took knowledge to its very foundations, and from there he can build up from it. In this essay, I will be discussing Descartes, and analyzing his first two meditations and arguing that he does indeed succeed in his argument.

Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience. Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays "The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of knowledge.

René Descartes was a French philosopher and also mathematician. His method of doubt led him to the famous "cogito ergo sum" when translated means "I am thinking, therefore I exist". This cogito was the foundation for Descartes' quest for certain knowledge. He explored doubt and how we can prove our own existence, by taking the first steps of scepticism. His book "Meditations On First Philosophy", was written in six parts. Each representing the six days that God took to create the world. Not to upset the Church, Descartes would need to prove the existence of God, and the soul. Within Descartes' argument, we find some important areas. Two, which require focus, are his

Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) contains six Meditations. In the first two of these Descartes addresses doubt and certainty. By the end of the second Meditation Descartes establishes the possibility of certainty by concluding that he is a “thinking thing” and that this is beyond doubt. Having established the possibility of certainty, Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God. The argument he presents in the Third Meditation for the existence of God has been nicknamed the ‘Trademark’ argument. This argument deals with types of ideas, of which there are three, a principle called the Causal Adequacy principle, and a sliding scale of reality. The argument concludes that the idea of a God that is a perfect being is an innate idea that is real and was caused by God and therefore God is real. This argument will be explained with the greater detail in the next paragraph. In the Fifth Meditation Descartes again addresses the existence of God with an argument for His existence. This argument is a variation of St. Anselm’s ontological argument. This argument is also framed around his theory of ideas, as well as his principle of ‘clear and distinct perception’ and is explained and discussed in paragraph three. The paragraphs following these will discuss how convincing these two arguments from Descartes are and will deal with various objections. Many of these objections are strong enough that it will be clear why Descartes’ case has failed to convince everyone.

Two famous philosophers came up with different approaches on how we gain our knowledge. Renee Descartes is often known as the father of modern philosophy. He was also a mathematician and scientist. He developed the coordinate system, explained blood circulation and rainbows. He also discovered how the earth orbits the sun. He is a rationalist about knowledge. (Pismenny, 2016) This means that he believes we can gain knowledge through our minds. He argues that you do not need to have experience of something to know it. David Hume, another philosopher, is an empiricist, so he disagrees with Descartes and believes that experience is the only way to gain knowledge. (Hume, 1910) Hume is a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist and essayist. He is also a skeptic and naturalist. (Pismenny, 2016) When it comes to knowledge, Descartes and Hume both have very different approaches, but it can be argued that Hume has the better approach.