Defense Of Skepticism

Granted that, we now have a better understanding of skepticism and skeptical arguments, we may examine Descartes arguments used to find reasonable doubt. The argument Descartes gives is the untrustworthiness argument. This argument states, that human senses can sometimes be deceiving and if human senses may sometimes be deceiving, then maybe they are always deceiving and if they are, humans should doubt their senses. This argument is not very strong and is self-defeating. Even Descartes voices objections to it in his writings.

The topic of knowledge and belief has been a subject of investigation and a primary field in philosophical research for centuries. Whether it was Aristotle or Descartes, multiple ideas on knowledge and belief arise, such as the epistemological theories of foundationalism or coherentism, which provide philosophical explanations to this debate. For the sake of this essay, and in my own opinion, knowledge should be distinguished from belief. Everyone is subject to different types of beliefs based on upbringing, however knowledge of basic items is universal, therefore it immediately becomes apparent that there is a clear distinction between the two concepts.

The one thing Descartes cannot doubt is that he exists, because he thinks and question the world around him. Descartes felt that our senses and perception of can skew every aspect of our understanding of reality, so only the fact that he exists is without doubt. This reasoning is known as solipsism (1). Basically, everything seen, felt, heard, or experienced are misrepresented by perception. With perception skewing everything, the only certainty is mind and the thoughts it holds, not necessarily that the thoughts are correct.

Descartes’ method of radical doubt focuses upon finding the truth about certain things from a philosophical perspective in order to truly lay down a foundation for ideas that have the slightest notion of doubt attached to them. He believed that there was “no greater task to perform in philosophy, than assiduously to seek out, once and for all, the best of all these arguments and to lay them out so precisely and plainly that henceforth all will take them to be true demonstrations” (Meditations, 36). The two key concepts that Descartes proves using the method of doubt are that the “human soul does not die with the body, and that God exists” as mentioned in his Letter of Dedication, since there are many that don’t believe the mentioned concepts because of the fact that they have not been proven or demonstrated. (Meditations, 35). In order to prove the above, he lays out six Meditations, each focusing on a different theme that leads us “to the knowledge of our mind and of God, so that of all things that can be known by the human mind, these latter are the most certain and the most evident” (Meditations, 40).

In this section I will thoroughly discuss and explore both of Descartes arguments. Firstly, scepticism is the doubting of knowledge or the doubting of a belief. Descartes holds the view that to know something or attain a certain belief for example God is omnibenevolent, I must know that God is omnibenevolent, believe that God is omnibenevolent and have reasoning/evidence that God is omnibenevolent. I think Descartes definition of knowledge is logical because again using the example God is omnibenevolent, I can’t know that God is omnibenevolent if I don’t believe that it is true and if I have no justification or reasoning for believing that God is omnibenevolent then I can’t possibly be certain that He is omnibenevolent. Descartes believes without knowing, believing and having reasoning/evidence, I cannot know that God is real. Descartes argues that “it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once” . Descartes argues that you cannot trust someone or something which has made you believe or accept a false truth. For example, in Descartes 6th Meditation he writes “sometimes towers which had looked round from a distance appeared square from close up; and enormous statues standing on their pediments did not seem large when observed from the ground”. This indicates that it is very easy to be deceived by someone or something which results in someone believing a false truth therefore I agree with Descartes that you cannot trust something which has deceived you more than once. Furthermore, looking at Descartes dreaming argument, the dreaming argument is an argument which infers when you are asleep, you can have dreams which do not allow you to distinguish whether you are asleep or awake. Dreams very often lead the dreamer to believing false situations which does not enable to dreamer to know they are asleep. The dreaming argument is about if you should trust

Descartes's believed he could doubt everything that could be doubted, and the remainder was be the

Explain and evaluate Rene Descartes argument for knowledge including the role of skepticism, the evil demon, and god in resolving his doubts.

At the beginning of Meditation three, Descartes has made substantial progress towards defeating skepticism. Using his methods of Doubt and Analysis he has systematically examined all his beliefs and set aside those which he could call into doubt until he reached three beliefs which he could not possibly doubt. First, that the evil genius seeking to deceive him could not deceive him into thinking that he did not exist when in fact he did exist. Second, that his essence is to be a thinking thing. Third, the essence of matter is to be flexible, changeable and extended.

The Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences is one of the most influential works in the history of modern philosophy, and important to the evolution of natural sciences. In this work, Descartes tackles the problem of skepticism. Descartes modified it to account for a truth he found to be incontrovertible. Descartes started his line of reasoning by doubting everything, so as to assess the world from a fresh perspective, clear of any preconceived notions. Whereas Francis Bacon’s Scientific Method wanted to replace the deductive reasoning by inductive reasoning. The important concept in this reformed

René Descartes was an extremely influential 17th-century philosopher and came up with many ideas that still persist to this day. One of those ideas was Cartesian skepticism, which states that “the view that we do not or cannot have knowledge in regard to a particular domain,” knowledge, in this case, is justified, true, beliefs. He first comes up with his idea of skepticism in the first part of his work “Meditations On First Philosophy,” aptly named “Of the things which may be brought within the sphere of the doubtful.” In his first meditation, he discusses his doubts with sensory illusion/error, possible dream states, and regarding deception by an evil demon. However, after dissolving his first two doubts, he gets stuck on the third and

Descartes’ first meditation, his main objective is to present three skeptical arguments to bring doubt upon what he considers his basic beliefs. Descartes believes this to be an intricate part of his complete epistemological argument. Descartes skeptical arguments are not intended to be a denial of his basic beliefs. On the contrary, he uses these arguments to help prove one of his main theses, which is the existence of God. One of the main premises that Descartes uses in his proof for the existence of God comes from the evil demon argument, which he proposed, in the first meditation. It is this evil demon argument, which will be the topic of the following discussion.

Descartes declares that he will only accept ideas that he can absolutely affirm, but accepts the existence of God without adequately proving it. This inadequacy undermines his declared project of defining the world in terms of established ideas. He does not sufficiently prove the idea of God, yet bases so much on it. When he later discusses physical bodies, intellect, and mathematical concepts, the reader cannot forget that everything he writes is based on the shaky foundation of the Christian God, and finds his

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.

Skepticism in general says that we do not know many propositions about the external world that we naturally take ourselves to know. Descartes affirms skepticism by analyzing beliefs as knowledge. Meditations seeks to find a solution to the notion of if one doubts a belief, can it be considered knowledge?

Descartes’ method of arriving at the conclusion is by starting from scratch and considering whether there could be any ground of doubt for his beliefs. He was a rational philosopher who gave reason the utmost importance and led him to realise that many of his current beliefs were in fact based on uncertainty and thus false conclusions. Therefore, in order to avoid this problem and find secure knowledge of on what he can be certain of, he uses the method of doubting everything that he finds reason to doubt and consequently, being justified in rejecting the whole. He will: ‘withhold my assent from matters which are not entirely certain and indubitable than from those which appear to me manifestly to be false’ (Descartes 1641: 6)