Descartes Argument To Distrust Our Senses?

797 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Science vs religion

Would you say someone is knowledgeable about matter x if that person has no justification to back such claims? Wouldn’t it be foolish to undoubtedly believe a fortune teller, to place your bets on reason less predictions? I simply ask you to be wise, as wise as the wisest of men, as wise as Socrates for he knew he knew nothing. Today, two thousand sixteen years later we possess just about as much knowledge as he did. Surprisingly it would come to me if someone would not argue otherwise. Arguments backup up by medical advancements, technology, and multiple discoveries in the natural sciences. Explanations looking to demolish the idea that we know nothing, but in fact we cannot be sure, and by not being, we know nothing. Descartes argument is …show more content…

One of them is the impossible task to know with certainty that we are not dreaming as he states, “…in my dressing-gown, sitting…when in fact I am lying undressed in bed!” and “…there are never any sure signs…being awake can be distinguished from being asleep” (Descartes, p.301). Nonetheless, an argument could be drawn where one can feel pain while awake that in a dream would otherwise be the ticket out. I beg to differ for I’ve felt joy, pain, and misery in a dream without it being disturbed. Who’s to say pinching oneself is the flawless test to our question? The problem is not to trust our senses, the problem is if we should, there solely is no way to be certain. The issue of not being skeptic, and accepting such conclusion that senses are in no way tools from where one can be deceive as a fact is the mistake. Nevertheless, not all has to be challenged for its existence. One thing for certain is that no matter how wicked a dream, or “reality” seem from one another such sciences such as arithmetic, and geometry would persist on both. Descartes reasons, “For whether I am awake or asleep, two and three added together are five…” (Descartes, pg.301).
Furthermore, if truth is found on us being deceived by our senses, then who is up to blame for our deception. Descartes argues that not God who is omnibenevolent, all good and truthful, but an evil demon who orchestrates such deception. One who’s goal is to surround

Show More
Related

  • Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy

    1961 Words  | 4 Pages

    At the start of the meditation, Descartes begins by rejecting all his beliefs, so that he would not be deceived by any misconceptions from reaching the truth. Descartes acknowledges himself as, “a thing that thinks: that is, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things” He is certain that that he thinks and exists because his knowledge and ideas are both ‘clear and distinct’. Descartes proposes a general rule, “that whatever one perceives very clearly and very distinctly is true” Descartes discovers, “that he can doubt what he clearly and distinctly perceives is true led to the realization that his first immediate priority should be to remove the doubt” because, “no organized body of knowledge is possible unless the doubt is removed” The best probable way to remove the doubt is prove that God exists, that he is not a deceiver and “will always guarantee that any clear and distinct ideas that enter our minds will be true.” Descartes must remove the threat of an invisible demon that inserts ideas and doubts into our minds to fool us , in order to rely on his ‘clear and distinct’ rule.

    Read More

  • The Reasons Of Descartes: The Dream Argument For Skepticism

    902 Words  | 2 Pages

    Just because the person is so engulfed in a dream that it is impossible for that individual to recognize disparities between these 2 experiences, these same person can nevertheless tell the difference once he or she has awakened. Moreover, a sensation as clear as pain cannot feel the same as the pain we feel when awaken, some argue. After all, Descartes premise is based on the idea that there is nothing in reality that a dream cannot replicate so vividly that we are unable to tell the difference. But he also said that dreams borrow, in a sense, some but not all things from reality so these may not be but somewhat plausible events made up by our

    Read More

  • An Examination of the Second Meditation of Descartes

    1585 Words  | 4 Pages

    Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.

    Read More

  • An Analysis Of George Berkeley And Descartes

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to Descartes, “because our senses sometimes deceive us, I wanted to suppose that nothing was exactly as they led us to imagine (Descartes 18).” In order to extinguish his uncertainty and find incontrovertible truth, he chooses to “raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations (Descartes 59).” This foundation, which Descartes is certain to be the absolute truth, is “I think, therefore I am (Descartes 18).” Descartes argues that truth and proof of reality lies in the human mind, rather than the senses. In other words, he claims that the existence of material objects are not based on the senses because of human imperfection. In fact, he argues that humans, similarly to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, are incapable of sensing the true essence or existence of material objects. However, what makes an object real is human thought and the idea of that object, thus paving the way for Descartes’ proof of God’s existence. Because the senses are easily deceived and because Descartes understands that the senses can be deceived, Descartes is aware of his own imperfection. He

    Read More

  • Humes' and Descartes' Position on the Existence of the External World

    1321 Words  | 3 Pages

    Descartes argues that we can know the external world because of God, and God is not a deceiver. Descartes’ core foundation for understanding what is important comes from three points: our thoughts about the world and the things in it could be deceptive, our power of reasoning has found ideas that are indubitable, and certainty come by way of reasoning. Once we have a certainty of God, and ourselves then we are easily able to distinguish reality from dreams, and so on. God created us and gave us reason, which tells us that our ideas of the external world come from God. God has directly provided us with the idea of the external world. The concept of existence, the self, and doubt could not have existed on its own; therefore they had to be created by someone to have put them in our mind. That creator is God, who is omnipotent and perfect. God is not a deceiver to me; God is good, so therefore what I perceive really does exist. God without existence is like a mountain without a valley. A valley does not exist if there is no mountain, and vice versa a mountain is not a mountain with out a valley. We cannot believe or think of God without existence. We know the idea of God, and that idea inevitably contains his existence. My thought on god is clear and distinct that he is existent. Descartes’ now has ‘rebuilt’ the world, solely because of his power and reasoning. Descartes’ is only able...

    Read More

  • Descartes View on the Senses

    661 Words  | 2 Pages

    Descartes first meditation included a few arguments that Descartes studied and analyze. The one I choose to analyze was his argument of sense deception. The actually argument is the following: (1) My senses sometimes deceive me. (2) If my senses sometimes deceive me, then they might always deceive me. (3) If my senses might always deceive me, then I cannot be certain about any beliefs acquired through my senses. (4) If I cannot be certain about any beliefs acquired through my senses, then I must suspend judgment on those beliefs. (5) Therefore I must suspend my judgment of those beliefs. To put this is premise conclusion argument form, it would look like this:

    Read More

  • Descartes Meditation 1 Analysis

    958 Words  | 2 Pages

    In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes narrates the search for certainty in order to recreate all knowledge. He begins with “radical doubt.” He asks a simple question “Is there any one thing of which we can be absolutely certain?” that provides the main question of his analysis. Proceeding forward, he states that the ground of his foundation is the self – evident knowledge of the “thinking thing,” which he himself is.

    Read More

  • Meditation By Rene Descartes

    1373 Words  | 3 Pages

    Descartes explains that, “For in the case of trickery or deception some imperfection is to be found; and although the ability to deceive appears to be an indication of cleverness or power, the will to deceive is undoubtedly evidence of malice or weakness, and so cannot apply to God” (Descartes 43). I agree that if God is a perfect being that truly exists, he would not have any reason to deceive humans, and that humans are imperfect because of our own volitions and poor judgement. However this still does not make clear and distinct perceptions true. Again, even if God is not deceiving us, our minds still can. Additionally, this point only makes sense in Descartes’ definition of God, which, again, is merely an assumption. Descartes gives a sound explanation on why God is not a deceiver, however that does not immediately make it true that everything should not be doubted just because we can perceive it clearly.

    Read More

  • The Dream Argument by Rene Descartes

    1011 Words  | 3 Pages

    ... dream argument. When the creator of the argument is not 100 percent behind it, it is very difficult to get behind it yourself. Even with the farfetched ideas, contradictions and inconsistencies of Rene Descartes’s dream argument it is still a very interesting outlook at the topic that has not been seen from Descartes angle from anyone before. However, due to of all these negative attributes that are attached to Descartes’s Dream Argument cause it to fail to create any claim.

    Read More

  • Examples Of Descartes Argument For The Existence Of God

    1088 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Descartes’ second meditation, he offers up an argument for Defective Nature Doubt that brings forth the idea that we can’t be certain of anything we perceive being actual and real (153). Descartes thinks that there is a possibility that we are constantly being deceived due to the fact that we don’t know, with perfect certainty, know where our ideas originate from (154). He tries to describe a method in order to dispel this Defective Nature Doubt by giving an argument for the existence of God. I think that the argument he gives for the existence of God is valid, yet I find it to be unsound due to the fact that a few of his premises are can easily be debated. In order to express this opinion, I will first provide explanations of the premises and conclusions of the argument, and then I will critique the premises that I find to be inadequate in order to support my opinion that Descartes’ argument is valid but unsound.

    Read More

  • Plato's The Allegory Of The Cave And Cogito Ergo Sum

    871 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is easy for us to believe that what we experience with our senses is true, including in our dreams, but according to Descartes, we should look beyond our senses and use reasoning to determine what is certain. Descartes’ question, “For how do we now that the thoughts that arise in us while we are dreaming are more false than others, since they are often no less vivid and explicit?” (34), is asked so that we will acknowledge that our senses can easily mislead us. This should then cause us to use reasoning to differentiate between truth and illusion, and both authors agree that reasoning should be the guide to true knowledge. Though he believes in the attainability of certain knowledge through using reasoning, Descartes argues that there are only a few things about which we can be certain. Descartes’s philosophy “Cogito, Ergo Sum,” which means I think, therefore I am proves this. He believes that because our mind acknowledges that we can think and have doubts, we can be sure of our existence; if we stopped th...

    Read More

  • Comparison of Descartes and Heidegger

    652 Words  | 2 Pages

    Second, Descartes raised a more systematic method for doubting the legitimacy of all sensory perception. Since my most vivid dreams are internally indistinguishible from waking experience, he argued, it is possible that everything I now "perceive" to be part of the physical world outside me is in fact nothing more than a fanciful fabrication of my own imagination. On this supposition, it is possible to doubt that any physical thing really exists, that there is an external world at all. (Med. I)

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Descartes Natural Light

    1695 Words  | 4 Pages

    Descartes writes, “I now seem to be able to lay it down as a general rule that whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true” (Med. 3, AT 7:35). The vulnerability of this statement is that truth relies on the meditator’s ability to perform clear and distinct perception correctly and without doubtfulness. Correct clear and distinct perception must now go toe to toe with Descartes’ evil

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: Cartesian Skepticism Created By René Descartes

    892 Words  | 2 Pages

    With Descartes’ ideology of the senses and how they allow for deception of the individual, how are we supposed to be able to differentiate between when we are in a dream or when we are actually in reality? When we are in a dream as well as in reality, the senses seem real and we believe that what we experience is true; however, according to Descartes, the only way to determine whether or not an individual is experiencing a dream is through the use of their thought processing. Within reality, there are certain aspects that allow one to realize that they are presently living in reality. These two main aspects are routine and patterns that are performed on the daily basis such as, going to work, eating breakfast, or even brushing your

    Read More

  • Descartes and Hume: A Look at Skepticism and Finding Stability

    899 Words  | 2 Pages

    René Descartes was a skeptic, and thus he believed that in order for something to be considered a true piece of knowledge, that “knowledge must have a certain stability,” (Cottingham 21). In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes concludes that in order to achieve this stability, he must start at the foundations for all of his opinions and find the basis of doubt in each of them. David Hume, however, holds a different position on skepticism in his work An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, for he criticizes Descartes’ claim because “‘it is impossible,’” (qtd. in Cottingham 35). Both philosophers show distinct reasoning in what skepticism is and how it is useful in finding stability.

    Read More

More about Descartes Argument To Distrust Our Senses?

Open Document