The Theory Of Epistemology By Rene Descartes Essay

Descartes’s mission in the meditations was to doubt everything and that what remained from his doubting could be considered the truth. This lead Descartes to argue for the existence of God. For the purpose of this paper, I will first discuss Descartes’s argument for the existence of God. I will then take issue with Descartes’s argument first with his view on formal reality and varying levels of reality, then with his argument that only God can cause the idea of God. I will then conclude with

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.

In Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes does and experiment with wax to try to prove that things actually exist in this world. This essay is going to prove how we can tell that things actually exist and what can perceive the wax.

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, a 17th century philosopher developed theories about foundational knowledge which questions everything we have ever thought to be true. In his first meditation he makes two distinctly cogent arguments calling into question our basic foundational knowledge. On the basis of deception, he creates two profound arguments: the dream argument and the evil genius argument. While both arguments seem to clearly show that we may be deceived in everything we do, my objections lie in the possibility of achieving what he wants and whether he can even endorse his own arguments conclusion. Although Descartes may be able to defend his method of doubt, I will argue that it is impossible to address the objection that his own evil genius claim undermines

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 main issue addressed in this exposition is if “reliabilism is true, could we ever know whether we know anything? (If not, how big a problem would that be?)” According to the following evidence that will be presented, it is suggested that there is no way of knowing whether we know anything, when using the reliabilist form of justification as a way to reach truth. To begin, reliabilism is a form of justification where we do not need to account for the exact sources our beliefs come from because it “is externalist in character” (Handout 10). Moreover, a belief is justified if it was formed by an unconditionally reliable process, or by a conditionally reliable process that receives input from other conditional reliable processes that are

The Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes is a thorough analysis about doubt. Descartes describes his method of doubt to determine whether he can truly know something. One of his major arguments is the proof of the existence of God. In this paper, I will attempt to unravel the flaws in Descartes proof that God exists.

Furthermore, this critique of Moore becomes a critique of the entire concept of foundationalism. The concept that there are premises and ideas that are true, but grounds for justification are not possible.

If this was the best case for justification, in a real world setting, we would be forced into skepticism about most, if not all of our beliefs. Elgin’s theory does not demand that you be 100% sure of the truth of every belief, however, the theory provides a logical format to discover what would most likely be the truth.

In this case, foundationalism can be seen as a type of propositional knowledge, which is often contrasted by the theory of Coherentism, that being each belief is justified by some further belief(s), which in turn may justify the belief, this argument is prone to circularity. Upon inspection, it is important to note how internalism and externalism may play into foundationalism. Internalism notes that the agent possessing justification must be aware that they are possessing said justification, whereas externalism holds the idea that you need not necessarily need to know about potential systematic deception, as long as you are aware of the result of deception. With regards to justification in foundationalism, internalism/externalism may be used to argue that we may be incapable of true perception of the foundational truths, as we do not harbour the correct mechanisms for understanding them in an objectively justified way. BonJour and Sellars are known anti Foundationalists, using logical attacks against foundational concepts. Alternatives like the doctrines of Coherentism are commonly used replacements of foundationalism. Its advocates accept foundationalism on the principle that clear sets of epistemologically basic propositions must exist, or else the process of justification will always result in Agrippa’s Trilemma justify foundationalism; the result of the latter being either an infinitely

René Descartes was a French philosopher and also mathematician. His method of doubt led him to the famous "cogito ergo sum" when translated means "I am thinking, therefore I exist". This cogito was the foundation for Descartes' quest for certain knowledge. He explored doubt and how we can prove our own existence, by taking the first steps of scepticism. His book "Meditations On First Philosophy", was written in six parts. Each representing the six days that God took to create the world. Not to upset the Church, Descartes would need to prove the existence of God, and the soul. Within Descartes' argument, we find some important areas. Two, which require focus, are his

The purpose of this essay is to justify why coherence theory of justification is preferable to a foundationalist theory of justification, I will start by explaining what Coherence the theory of justification and foundationalist theory of justification is. Coherence theory of justification also known as coherentism, is a theory of epistemic justification, this theory implies that in order for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of belief, For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that creates that system must "cohere" with one another. (Murphy, 2007)

Throughout history, philosophers have been trying to come up with a clear way to provide the justification of our beliefs and knowledge. Noah Lemos offers readers explanations of both foundationalism and coherentism for theories of justification. These two different theories offer very different ways to explain the basis of our beliefs. For a foundationalist, they believe that all of our beliefs can be broken down until we reach a basic belief. This belief would be largely independent of other beliefs and not derived from other beliefs. A coherentist feels that a belief can be reasonably justified if it is coheres with our other beliefs.

The Coherence Theory of Justification Cohertism is an alternative to foundationalism, cohertism is the idea that new information is well justified and accepted as knowledge if it coheres (agrees) with our existing knowledge in a mutually supporting network Coherentism offers answers to some of the problems that arise with foundationalism, and therefore it offers an alternative or additional means of justify our belief systems. And in these systems we hold hundreds of beliefs that support each other coherently. However some beliefs that we hold do not necessary fit with our coherent set of beliefs, for example I hold that ghosts exist as dead people, however I also belief that when