Skepticism and the Philosophy of Language in Early Modern Thought

Rene Descartes was a philosopher that lived from 1596 to1650. In Meditations of First Philosophy, Descartes leaves the reader with two main themes: skepticism and the cogito. In this paper, I will be examining Descartes’s writings. Mainly, what Descartes’s project consisted of, skepticism, the arguments he gave as means to his project, and the cogito. In doing so I will explain how he left the reader with the two important philosophical notions of skepticism and cogito.

Rene Descartes is one of the most known French philosophers among the world’s known philosophers. The most common phrase of Rene Descartes is “I think, therefore, I am” that is universally known. He further says that human being use different reasoning in an attempt to have the most equitable endowment and tackles a question on the most appropriate way that individuals might use reasoning. In his book, Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes presents an argument that opposes an individual’s trust of senses. His works are appealing but to some extent is a sense of oddity that is noticed. This paper will discuss Rene Descartes views on the sense of data, what is appealing about his argument on the senses in relation to the actual meditations.

My initial reaction to this text, A Critique of Skepticism, by John Hospers, held some unique technique as well with reason in regard to “Theory of Knowledge.” I think it was comprised with various, yet continuous questions. For example: What is knowing something is substantial? - Why is it imperative to isolate between what you know and do or can't know? - When do you doubt what you thought you truly knew? These questions fascinate my mind into pondering about things, substances, items, any form etc. This paper spotlights on uncertainty, and why philosophers, for instance, John Hospers challenge against this viewpoint. There are many avenues to approach what the idea of knowing- what do we know? How did we learn to know it? It can continue

In this paper, I will compare and contrast Descartes’ and Berkeley’s beliefs on the source of human knowledge and how it relates to their definitions of absolute truth. According to Descartes, the source of human knowledge is found only through thinking, because our senses deceive us. Absolute truth, for Descartes, is objective fact established through deductive reasoning. Berkeley, on the other hand, believes that human knowledge originates from perception and that absolute fact is one’s perceptions of the material world. In this paper I will explore Descartes’ and Berkeley’s opposing views on the origin of human knowledge and their respective definitions of absolute truth. First, I will describe both philosophers’ explanation of the source of human knowledge. Then I will contrast their definitions of absolute truth, and explore how each philosopher uses their respective sources of human knowledge to find this absolute truth.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, or how we know anything and what it means to know anything. It is where one can explain how our mind is linked to reality and if these relationships are valid or invalid. In this paper, I will first present the views of Descartes on epistemology. Next, I will clarify his view of God, the body, and the mind. I will also discuss how well Descartes presents the arguments and how well they work for each topic. Lastly, I will discuss my overall agreement with his project for knowledge in general, however, I further discuss a few key components that later philosophers came to add on.

There remains doubt in how much the human mind really knows; what is known and how the mind is capable of knowing it. In philosophical skepticism, it is asserted that we know little to nothing about the world external of our senses. Anything claimed to be knowledge retains the possibility of doubt, even that which is used as justification for obtaining that piece (or pieces) of knowledge. There is a problem that arises when considering the external world, which is of obtaining and being able to offer sufficient justification for “commonsense” belief.

New scientific discoveries not only enhanced man’s comfort in life but also his appreciation of human potential and reason. It was becoming increasingly evident that it was to man’s benefit to reason and understand. With this realization came the need to determine the proper place of human reasoning in man’s life. The philosophies of the early post-Reformation period dealt with this issue—how to relate and balance faith and reason. Gone was the blind, unquestioning faith of the medieval period. Men were now free to doubt and deny. Those who believed in Christ and His claims found themselves increasingly shifting to a defensive stance and trying to accommodate human reason.

In philosophy the distinction between truth and knowledge is effectively highlighted in Plato’s allegory of the cave, which illustrates the great limitations faced by philosophers in discovering the ultimate nature of reality. Nevertheless regarding the theory of knowledge, the parable itself is highly symbolic and asserts that any knowledge gained through perceptual awareness is an illusion and are mere reflections of the highest truths. This allegory can be interpreted in many ways; however in the context of platonic epistemology it flawlessly conveys Plato’s “Theory of forms” of an immaterial realm of abstractions considered to be the highest reality in which upon all natural phenomenon is based on.

Descartes’ skeptical scenario is a view of radical skepticism which challenges the common-sense view of knowledge. In this essay, I will demonstrate that the possibility of Descartes’ skeptical scenario shows that knowledge of the external world is impossible. This will be done by examining the dreaming argument. Subsequently, I will present responses to the critiques of the dreaming argument via the analysis of the arguments of a deceiving God and an evil demon. The idea of his writings in Meditation I is to show that there are doubts about knowledge.

Descartes begins the method of doubt by how he was struck by the large number of falsehoods that he had accepted in his youth that was taken to be true, and how doubtful they were and had subsequently built upon them. Since he knows that many of his beliefs are based on false opinions, he is not sure which of them he can trust and which he can’t. Descartes presents his philosophical project, and claims that he needs to put into questions the truth of all his beliefs. Descartes shows that we can doubt the truth of all our beliefs by two main arguments, the Dream Argument and the Evil Genius argument. I agree with the fact that Descartes suggest there isn’t any objective way to confirm whether we are awake.

Being skeptical in the 21st century is at an all time high because not only is having one’s own opinion accepted, its encouraged. Additionally, because of the open society we live in, it has allowed mankind to examine their life at a deeper level. Now, people can be skeptical of their religion without worrying about being persecuted. Often people question what is reality and whether seeing is indeed believing. Three passages that indulge in this skepticism are The Matrix, The Allegory, of The Cave, and Meditation I of the Things of Which We May Doubt. All three of these passage at the root propose the same idea that reality is not what is observed; furthermore, that there is a true reality that one can attain by being skeptical of their current reality and thinking outside the box.

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.

How many times have you said, “No way, I do not believe it!” It is our natural tendency not to believe in something that we have not seen with our own eyes or experienced it personally. There is a saying, “seeing is believing” which has led us to a world full of skeptics. We want proof so we are not gullible fools. Skepticism, or scepticism, as it was spelled back in the ancient times, was pondered by philosophers who tried unsuccessfully to figure out the thought process and how we gain knowledge. Philosophers gave deep thought to determine how we arrive at such true beliefs and knowledge of the external world. Three such philosophers were Rene Descartes, David Hume and Christopher Grau. Rene Descartes was a French philosopher in the early 1600’s; David Hume was a Scottish Philosopher in the 1700’s, and Grau an American philosopher Professor born in 1970. The timeline s important because philosophical views have evolved over time. All three men were from different eras, but they each explored, argued, and addressed the topic of skepticism from their philosophical view. This proves that they take the subject of skepticism seriously, just as we should too. There is good reason to believe that a human’s knowledge of the external world results from both a posteriori knowledge acquired through sensory experience and a priori knowledge which is innate. Descartes, Hume, and Grau through their personal views and skeptical

As with many philosophers worth studying, a common theme present amongst René Descartes, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant is the fact that all three philosophers challenged the traditional ways of thinking about philosophy respective to their eras. In certain aspects, all three of these philosophers also grappled with understanding, discovering, and logically explaining the power of the mind to shape whole truths. From Descartes’ foundational work with methodological doubt to Kant’s contribution to previous philosophical concepts such as synthetic judgments, all three men made undeniably valuable advances in epistemological thought despite the occasional controversies associated with their forward thinking during their time.

In “The Refutation of Skepticism”, Jonathan Vogel establishes an “Inference to the Best Explanation” (hereafter, “IBE”) as a means to refute skepticism about the external world. In this refutation, Vogel acknowledges that skepticism about IBE still remains a possibility, but that this kind of skepticism would be rather outlandish in character and thus could be ignored. This paper shall both establish and evaluate Vogel’s reasoning as to why he confidently dismisses any skepticism pertaining to his IBE, and furthermore will illuminate some points as to why Vogel may have mischaracterized potential threats to his method, leaving his refutation of skepticism vulnerable to doubt that is not as