Descartes ' Argument For The Discovery Of Scientific Truth Essay

In his Meditations Rene Descartes aimed to reconstruct the whole of science by trying to prove the distinction between mind and matter. He gives an argument from doubt, and another from conceivability. I will give a brief summary of the foundations Descartes builds his thesis on, and then looking at his arguments and whether they are capable of persuading us that dualism is a logical stance to hold.

From the beginning of the third meditation, Descartes seeks to establish the existence of God

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.

As the first “premise” of his proof Descartes makes a very important distinction between the various types of ideas. The first type of idea he discusses is ideas that are images of things. This type of idea, when thought of, is apprehended as an object of my thought, but there is something more embraced in the thought than merely the representation of the object. Now if these ideas are considered only in themselves, and are not referred to any object beyond them, they cannot, properly speaking, be false. This even applies to the will and affections, a second type of idea, for although I may desire objects that are wrong, it is still true that I desire them. The third type of idea is that of judgement. Descartes goal in this classification is to find in his mind which of the ideas are the proper bearers of truth and falsehood. Considered in themselves, ideas are not false nor are desires. The only place where mistakes can be made is in making judgements. As Descartes says, “And the chief and most common mistake which is to be found here consists in my judging that the ideas which are in me resemble, or conform to, things located outside me.” Descartes further classifies his ideas by their origin: those that appear

In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes takes the reader through a methodological exercise in philosophical enquiry. After stripping the intellect of all doubtful and false beliefs, he re-examines the nature and structure of being in an attempt to secure a universally valid epistemology free from skepticism. Hoping for the successful reconciliation of science and theology, Descartes works to reconstruct a new foundation of absolute and certain truth to act as a catalyst for future scientific research by “showing that a mathematical [rational-objective] physics of the world is attainable by creatures with our intellectual capacities and faculties” (Shand 1994, p.

There are many aspects of Rene Descartes’ and Francis Bacon’s practices of approaching the scientific method. When comparing the two scientists, it is clear that there are many similarities. In an effort to compare Rene’ Descartes and Francis Bacon it is important to discover the pioneer’s investigations and philosophies. Both credited with the evolution from Aristotelian discovery to modern science, Descartes and Bacon re imagined science. Through various explorations, Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes created the scientific method we still use today. Descartes believed that only two things in life proved true, that man in fact exists and that mathematics are the base of all truth. Similarly, Bacon believed in a simple truth as well, the fact that everything in nature can be broken down and understood by simple parts. Descartes’ and Bacon’s similarities can be seen in their respective published works, Discourse on Method and the New Organon, both published in the 1600’s. From their skepticism towards previous philosophy to how they changed science, there are many similarities between Descartes and Bacon.

While using imagination, you have to actual force yourself to mentally “imagine” things. While in order to understand things we don’t have to mentally exhaust our minds to comprehend something. There is an essence in the mind and Descartes believes that even if he did not have sensory perception or imagination he would still be a thinking/existing being. He goes on to make his argument about corporeal objects which is very similar to the argument for the existence of God. He explains that people can avoid error by “suspending judgement” on things that are not vivid and clear.

Descartes’ method offers definitive conclusions on certain topics, (his existence, the existence of God)but his reasoning is not without error. He uses three arguments to prove existence (His and God’s) that attempt to solidify his conclusions. For his method to function seamlessly, Descartes needs to be consistent in his use of the method, that is, he must continue to doubt and challenge thoughts that originate in his own mind. He is unable to achieve this ideal state of mind, however, and his proofs are shown to be faulty.

The existence of God has always been an arguable topic. Descartes’ however, believed that he had proof of God’s existence through an intense analysis of the mind. Throughout this paper I will discuss what he has provided as proof and some of the complications that arise throughout his argument.

The 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes believed that God exists. His proof of an all perfect being’s existence was explained by having an idea of God that had to have been caused by God. But simply having an idea of God is not enough for there to necessarily exist such a being. This paper will critically examine Descartes’s causal argument though its premises and conclusion.

While there are many other differences, these two standards show that even though I might not be able to know the true natures of these two worlds, I have good grounds for believing that the ‘waking’ world is fundamentally different from the ‘dream’ world. Given this ability to distinguish ‘waking’ from ‘dreaming’, it must be concluded that Descartes’ argument fails to warrant the degree of skepticism he

Secondly, Descartes, by embarking on this reconstruction of his thoughts, hopes to find a stable basis for the sciences. Since Descartes was trained as a mathematician, he likes to find proofs for ideas, so that he can know them with absolute certainty. Initially, he believes philosophy to be the basis for the sciences “insofar as they [the sciences] borrow their principles from philosophy.” However, he concludes that philosophy cannot be the basis for the sciences, saying, “one could not have built anything upon such unstable foundations.” Now, he has to find a stronger foundation for the sciences and it is only through the reconstruction of his thought that he is able to do this.

Rene Descartes believed that true knowledge could only be achieved by eliminating any beliefs that could possibly turn out to be false, and build a new system of knowledge on a foundation of beliefs whose truth could not be doubted. This way, we do not spend every moment of our day, day or our lives questioning everything; from the ground we step on to the air that we breathe. Our existence would be pointless if we had to spend every second of the day doubting our own thoughts, intuition, and experiences. In other words it is not productive to believe that any proposition requires a justification, which in tern is the infinite regress argument. In contrast, foundationalism is the theory of epistemology, which believes that beliefs can be known to be true by simply reflecting on them and that other ideas could be known to be true on the basis of reflecting on their relationship to other ideas, which provide the basic structure for a model of justification. This essay will discuss how foundationalism addresses the problem of infinite regress with respect to justification.

In his work Meditations on First Philosophy, published in 1641, René Descartes sets out to establish a set of indubitable truths for the sciences. He begins by discarding all of his beliefs, then works to rebuild his beliefs based on careful thought. Descartes clearly states this goal, saying in the First Meditation, “I will work my way up… I will accomplish this by putting aside everything that admits of the least doubt” (I, 17). He is able to establish his own existence, but struggles to move beyond his internal thoughts to discuss external objects. Descartes decides that the Christian God is the bridge he needs to escape the confines of his own mind, and argues for the existence of God in the Third Meditation in order to move on to discussing the physical world. In this paper I will argue that Descartes’ rationalistic project would have been improved without an appeal to the Christian God, although I will also argue that Descartes thinks this appeal is necessary.

How do we know what we know? Ideas reside in the minds of intelligent beings, but a clear perception of where these ideas come from is often the point of debate. It is with this in mind that René Descartes set forth on the daunting task to determine where clear and distinct ideas come from. A particular passage written in Meditations on First Philosophy known as the wax passage shall be examined. Descartes' thought process shall be followed, and the central point of his argument discussed.