Rene Descartes And Blaise Pascal

The notion of subjective idealism, within western philosophy, is credited to the 18th century philosopher George Berkeley. In his most notable work regarding this system of metaphysics, a Treatise Concerning Principles of Human Knowledge, Berkeley holds that nothing exists outside of the immaterial ideas within minds. “Esse est percipi” or “to be is to be perceived” (Berkeley,11). Berkley’s form of subjective idealism is able to avoid the problem of solipsism by his holding that the totality of perceived ideas reside in the mind of God. This monistic system of metaphysics runs contra to the earlier works of Locke and Descartes whose relative theories assumed a dualist stance concerning metaphysics. The philosophic relevance of subjective idealism is conveyed by Borges in “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius,” when he cites David Hume who held “that

Dualism is defined as the view that hold what exist is either physical or mental. (pg.98). Also dubbed the “two-realms view” by Plato, identifies some things as having both components, it is the most accepted idea since most believe that there has to be a mental connection with physical items. Materialism is the view that only the physical exist (pg.98). There is no connection mentally to the physical material; I believe this is stating that we did not have a real idea towards the material. Idealism is the view that only the mental exist. (pg.99). this is the most farfetched one of them all, that everything we know is a perception not a

There are three forms of doubt presented are sense doubt, defective nature doubt and dream doubt. Sense doubt refers everything observed by the five senses: taste, touch, smell, sound and sight. For example, in Meditation Two, when Descartes is examining a piece of wax, he determines that his senses have deceived him and therefore he cannot trust them in the future. He also determines that he cannot believe the principles and ideas that his senses have implanted inside of his mind. In defective nature doubt one assumes that everything that he or she had been taught from the beginning is immoral. Therefore,

In this paper I will contrast the ways that Blaise Pascal and Saint Anselm of Canterbury attempted to convince people to believe in God. Before getting into the two arguments I should first clarify a few key terms. Firstly, the difference between ordinary and religious beliefs. An ordinary belief is exactly what it sounds like, it’s a typical belief based on adequate evidence. An example would be “I believe the sky is blue because I’ve observed it as blue countless times”. Religious beliefs on the other hand, are not based on reasoning, but instead “Sola Fide”, or faith alone suffices, meaning that these beliefs are based only on trust that the proposition is true. A basic example of a religious belief would be “God exists” despite a lack of evidence for the claim. The major conflict between the two different types of beliefs is that in ordinary belief its considered shame worthy to belief something without have reasons to support it while belief without evidence is the core of religious belief. Another key term that must be understood to understand the arguments is “faith seeking understanding”. This idea was championed by Anselm and is crucial to understanding his argument. In short, he means that if someone begins with just faith in God then through that God will help them attain understanding.

Descartes forces the idea that God exists on his readers with the grounds of clear, distinct, and mathematical ideas. Pascal claims that because of the obscurity and ambiguity in God we are not forced to believe in Him but instead have the freedom of choice to do

Descartes aim throughout the first segment of his Meditations to overthrow existing foundations of knowledge and encourages readers to remove prior knowledge and prejudices in order to fully accept the new foundations which he aims to establish. The method of doubt is used to find beliefs that can serve as a new foundation for knowledge. Only beliefs that are certain, immune from doubt, can perform this function. Descartes argued that what we believe on the basis of the senses cannot meet the standard. Consequently, he concluded, we do not know anything on the basis of our senses and the dream argument is formed.

Recalling his previous thoughts in Meditation Two, the Meditator supposes that what he sees does not exist, that his memory is faulty, that he has no senses and no body, and that extension, movement and place are mistaken notions. Perhaps, he remarks, the only certain thing remaining is that there is no certainty. Although this argument often seems logical and fully-developed, Descartes uses this meditation to as inspiration prove that perhaps there is one thing that is absolutely certain in the universe: his existence.

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.

Have you ever been driving in a car with a child who asked a million questions starting with “why”? Regardless of how well you think you answered their question, they will ask why the answer to that question is what it is, and so on and so forth. This is characteristic of all human beings; children just are not as restrained and willing to ask whatever questions comes to their minds, while adults are more inclined to accept the first level answer and question it no further. However in the back of our minds we all want to know the truth, and we will eventually conjure up a reason why what we accept as truth, in fact, the truth. Two very prominent philosophers, René Descartes, and William James were concerned with truth and how people come to believe and accept something as true or false. They believed that there is a very definite truth, but they mapped out different routes in order to get to the place where truth could be found.

In order to accomplish this, the meditator doubts away his body, the universe, and every other preconceived belief he had “…because undermining the foundations will cause whatever has been built upon them to crumble of its own accord, I will attack straightaway those principles which supported everything I once believed” (Descartes, 18).This allows him to seek sturdier foundations for his knowledge, one that he knows he to be true, as they cannot be doubted away if Cartesian skepticism is employed correctly. Crucial to the use of this method is trying to find doubt in one’s beliefs, as if there is any doubt whatsoever then that belief or opinion could be false. With that in mind, the meditator acknowledges that his senses can be deceived. Although most of the time his sensory knowledge is true, he notes that while dreaming, he is often convinced that what he senses is real. As he reflects on this, he remarks, “I see so plainly that there are no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep” (Descartes, 19). The sensations he feels and the images he sees in dreams are all derived from real life experiences. The narrator links this to art; the composite image consists of numerous real things. He concludes that although he can doubt complex, composite ideas, such as

Throughout the first two mediations of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes’ is concerned with knowledge, doubt, the human mind, and how all three of those things interact with one another. While explaining this in more detail, Descartes attempts to convene his main idea through the use of what is known as “The Wax Argument.” Descartes’ uses the argument to further and support his arguments about the mind, most notably, that he knows himself more than anything external. The main way he does this is through stating the limits of his imagination.

Human Nature and society are two very controversial subjects. People can never seem to agree on what is human nature or how society should work. Why you may ask? It is because no one truly knows because everyone has different ideas. Sir Thomas More and Michel de Montaigne are prime examples of how they may seem to have totally different ideas, but they do indeed have some similarities. Although Sir Thomas More and Michel de Montaigne both believe human nature is best in a simpler form; More argues in order to have a simpler life they must be governed through a utopian society, where Montaigne argues the barbaric lifestyle is superior.

Descartes believes that knowledge comes from within the mind. This is a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. While seeking true knowledge, Descartes writes his Six Meditations. In these meditations, Descartes tries to develop a strong foundation, which all knowledge can be built upon. In the First Meditation, Descartes begins developing this foundation through the method of doubt. He casts doubt upon all his previous beliefs, including “matters which are not entirely certain and indubitable [and] those which appear to be manifestly false.” (Descartes, p.75, par.3) Once Descartes clears away all beliefs that can be called into doubt, he can then build a strong base for all true

This paper will attempt to explain Descartes’ first argument for the distinction that exists between mind and body. Dualism is a necessary aspect of Descartes’ metaphysics and epistemology. This distinction is important within the larger framework of Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) because after doubting everything (body, extension, senses, etc.), Descartes comes to the conclusion that because he doubts, he must be a thinking thing and therefore exist (p.43). This means that the mind must be separate and independent from the body. One can doubt that the body exists while leaving the mind intact. To doubt that the mind exists, however, is contradictory. For if the mind does not exist, how, or with what, is that doubt being accomplished.

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.