Descartes theorized that in order to acquire knowledge, there essentially is some rational technique for attaining it, and that the expenditure of the senses, or any other individual capability was not a dependable basis. In his third meditation he says, “I know that even bodies are not perceived by the senses, or by the faculty of imagination, but by the intellect alone (69). As a rationalist Descartes supposed that this withstood identically for everyone, that all people have rational learned concepts. He assumed that knowledge of external things was a result of only the cognizance, and not the senses. Descartes also anticipated that the entire universe was scientifically logical, and that everything could be comprehended by deduction. …show more content…
The terms "self" and "substance" in Hume 's view could refer to something only if they are meaningful. Such terms can be meaningful only if the ideas associated with them were derived from sensation. Hume 's theory of meaning therefore emphasizes the fact that the person exists not in terms of substance, but rather in terms of ideas that are derived from the senses. Man experienced the world through sensations generated by his physical existence. Hume 's position is quite simply that persons consist of mind and body, the distinction between experience and the world to which it refers. While Descartes is truthful in his statement that the senses deceive us in some circumstances, his wide-ranging skepticism about the senses is not justified. In order to make his case, Descartes presented the example of the stick appearing to be deformed by the water in which he has found that his senses had in fact deceived him. To be vindicated in claiming that the senses deceive, a person would be required to be capable of recognizing when an error of the senses has taken place. In other words, the person would need to be able to differentiate amongst being erroneous and being accurate. For example, a person would need to know that the sticks appearance was an optical illusion and therefore what is seen is not what is actually there. However, in knowing this, a person is able to perceive the deception and thus avoid the error in senses. Descartes, in arguing
Aquinas and Descartes have different ideas on how humans gain knowledge in the world. Both philosophers need to define what the human body is composed of in order to determine how we gain knowledge.
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
Carefully explain Descartes’ cogito and his attempt to build his knowledge structure from the ground up. (Be as succinct as possible.) Does Descartes succeed or fail in that attempt? Justify your answer in full.
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
Descartes’ proof that the Mind and the Body are distinct substances is as follows, First Descartes asserts that everything that can be clearly and distinctly understood is within the ability to be created by God as to correspond identically with the way that Descartes understand things in the world. It follows from this assertion that because Descartes is able to clearly and distinctly understand one thing apart from one another is enough to make them noticeably different in substance. Descartes follows this with the notion of the mind, saying that because one is able to possess a clear and distinct understanding of their self as a distinct and separate substance, which is not extended into the environment and handles all of the logical thinking. He continues to say that he possesses a clear and distinct understanding of the body as an extended and unthinking. He finishes with the conclusion that this demonstrates that the body and the mind are actually distinct form one another.
Descartes is able to examine ideas and gain knowledge form them. Innate ideas mean they are present at birth, in other words we are implanted with certain ideas at our creation. He often uses ‘innate ideas’ to explain the mind’s original programming. “An infant’s mind is programmed with the rules of logic. Consider as an example the valid rule, modus ponens. Let P and Q stand for variables… the rules states that, if P then Q is true and P is true, then it follows that Q is true. We know that we are programmed with this rule because young children, who have never studied logic and have never entertained the rule, when given an argument in which the variables above are replaced by actual sentences, are able to intuit the validity of the argument.” Descartes believed our minds are programmed with eternal truths, “Whatever comes into existence must have been brought into existence by something else.” He also discovers that the idea of God is only part of his initial programming but also that God, operating through secondary sources such as his parents, is the programmer.
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.
Hume's idea on that we derive our ideas through our experiences is very knowledgeable in my opinion. Everyone has different experiences throughout their lives, not everyone's is the same, so we must get our ideas through our experiences. If a little child puts his hand on the hot stove top, hi is in pain from the heat. He will learn from that experience that stoves are hot and not to touch them. Descartes believed that everyone's thoughts and ideas were equal, unlike Hume. How could Descartes idea on equal thoughts be true when not everyone may even have a stove in their house so each little child may not be able to experience the same things?
Descartes as a rationalist believes that knowledge comes from the mind alone. During the First Meditation, Descartes came to the conclusion that there must be some kind of evil deceiver that "leads him to a state of doubt" (Descartes 77). Descartes starts out with the fact that distant sensations are subject to doubt and uncertainty. He then goes on to try and cast doubt onto close sensations. Descartes starts off by stating that close sense perception must be certain because we are not crazy, and only a insane person would doubt what was right in front of them. Descartes then uses the dream argument to cast uncertainty on close sense perception because "they are as lively, vivid and clear as reality is when we are awake" (Descartes 76). Descartes then states that geometry and math are certain. "For whether I am awake or sleeping, two and three added together always make five, and a square never has more than four sides; and it does not seem possible that truths so apparent can be suspected of any falsity or uncertainty" (Descartes 98). Descartes comes to realize this certainty because math, geometry, and the simple sciences can be understood and proved through logic and reasoning. He then uses his Deceiver Argument to cast doubt on close sensations. He questions how we know for certain that God is good, and how we know that
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.
really be applied to us as beings which we perceive. So what is the connection between what we believe to be us
Before these changes were apparent, Descartes pointed out the difficulties of relying on the senses, of the physical body. In section 31 of Meditation two, he says that the perception he has, "is a case not of vision or touch or imagination - nor has it ever been, despite previous appearances - but of purely mental scrutiny". Descartes shows that our senses cannot be used to have knowledge of things in the external world, and that knowledge of these things must come through the mind alone.
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.
Philosophers David Hume and Renee Descartes have opposing views about the origination of ideas. Hume claims that all ideas are copies of impressions, which come from sensation. Descartes disagrees with this, arguing that in order to obtain knowledge, there must be a rational method for obtaining it, and that the senses are not a reliable source. This essay will present both philosopher’s arguments and compare and contrast each perspective regarding matters of knowledge and ideas. I will then argue how Hume’s philosophy is the more viable theory, and give you my reason’s as to why it is a stronger argument, in comparison to Descartes’ more rational take on the origin of ideas and knowledge.