Descartes Response To Skepticism

Skepticism: Scenarios and Responses

Some of the first major philosophical works that I read were Descartes’ Meditations. In his first Meditation, Descartes writes about the idea of skepticism. This is when I was exposed to the topic of skepticism and I found myself interested in the idea right from the start. Skepticism is one of the most popular topics in epistemology. It is also not a topic that only appeals to philosophers. Skepticism is a topic that draws many people’s attention because it is an idea that rocks the cores of many of the beliefs that are closest to us. After all, some of the concepts that follow from the idea of skepticism are ones such as we might not actually have any knowledge of the world or the world, as we know it, might not actually be real. Skeptical scenarios prove to be both intriguing and intimidating. Responses to skepticism usually turn out to be satisfying in some ways but carry unwanted baggage in other ways. Overall, skepticism is a topic that much thought has been dedicated to and one that has led to many philosophical developments. In this paper, I will touch upon

three different skeptical scenarios that have been contemplated. Then I will detail three of the most common responses to skepticism. Next, I will argue for the response that I believe is the strongest. Finally, I will offer some closing remarks on why the topic of skepticism is a significant epistemological topic.
Skeptical Scenarios
The problem of skepticism, which is the issue that skeptical scenarios try to emphasize as a real possibility, is one that has been posing an issue in philosophy for centuries. In fact, Barry Stroud claims that it has been a problem for philosophy since at least the time of Descartes. (Stroud) In the first chapter titled, “The Problem of the External World,” of his book, The Significance of Philosophical Skepticism, Barry Stroud writes about the importance of the problem of skepticism and attempts offer an understanding of the problem. Stroud actually uses Descartes’ skeptical scenario, which I will present later in this section, to help develop the understanding of skepticism that he offers. In “The Problem of the External World,” Stroud states that the problem of skepticism, in its simplest form is “to show how we can have any knowledge of the world at all” (Stroud). He goes on to define skepticism about the external world as “the conclusion that… that no one knows anything about the world around us” (Stroud). Stroud stresses that it is crucial to understand the problem of skepticism because it is a significant issue and one that quite possibly does not have an answer. Stroud asserts that there is no solution to the skepticism problem, which is not necessarily an unpopular position to take. It seems reasonable to be indifferent about the problem of skepticism or just to dismiss it as frivolous because it is not a problem that seems to cause any significant issues in our lives. However, it seems like Stroud is right in thinking that the problem of skepticism is a significant one. After all, it is a problem that potentially affects all of the knowledge that we claim to have. What this section about skeptical scenarios will do is make the problem of skepticism appear to be significant by showing that states of skepticism are an imaginable possibility. I hope that through my presentation of different skeptical scenarios, it will become clear why the problem of skepticism is both a significant and daunting philosophical issue. (Stroud)
Descartes’ Great Deceiver
It seems to only make senses to begin my section about skeptical scenarios with the scenario that sparked my interest in the topic of skepticism and partly my interest in philosophy in general Descartes’ great deceiver. It also makes sense to begin with the skeptical scenario that Stroud utilizes to make his argument that is mentioned above. As already mentioned, Descartes really elaborates on his skeptical scenario in his first Meditation. In fact, Descartes’ first Meditation is titled “On what can be called into doubt” and Descartes sets out to see if any of the beliefs he holds are free from doubt. In order to figure out which of his beliefs can be called into doubt, Descartes embarks on what is almost a skeptical quest. He states that he wants to focus on “undermining the foundations of his beliefs” rather than look at each individual belief. The first thing that Descartes targets with his doubts are his senses. He states that many of his beliefs come from his sensory experiences but he also recognizes that our senses can be flawed. Descartes asserts that our senses can deceive us and makes the bold claim that things that deceive us even once should not be trusted. As Descartes continues to call his senses into doubt, he seems to quickly realize that doubting his senses will not undermine all of his beliefs and so he turns his skeptical quest towards dreams. (Descartes, Meditations)
Dreams, Descartes suggests, can appear so vivid and realistic that it is hard for an individual to realize that they are dreaming. He also suggests that dreams can deceive us as well into believing things such as we do not have two hands when really we do. However, just as with the senses, Descartes seems to imply that dreams can only call so much into doubt. This is because dreams are still based in reality according to Descartes and certain things will always be true, even in dreams, like the math expression “two plus two equals four”. (Descartes, Meditations)
Finally, Descartes turns his doubt and skepticism towards the idea of god. While Descartes makes it clear that he does believe in some form of omnipotent god, he calls into doubt whether god would also be omnibenevolent. Descartes asserts that if god were truly all good, he would not let us be deceived even once. However, Descartes has already asserted that we are deceived. In as much, Descartes suggests the possibility that god deceives us. In fact, Descartes goes as far as to contemplate an evil demon who does everything in their power to deceive us. Descartes also seems to settle on the idea that if an omnipotent being is deceiving us then all of our beliefs can be called into doubt. Through his idea of the “great deceiver,” Descartes finds the state of total skepticism he was searching for. After laying out his own conception of a skeptical scenario, Descartes then sets a new direction for himself, which is getting out of his state of skepticism. This is what he dedicates his further meditations to. (Descartes, Meditations)
Though it seems to be the consensus between philosophers that Descartes response to skepticism does not fully succeed, however, some of the concepts from his response and the methods he utilized to both fill out his skeptical scenario and his response still hold true.

For example, one of the most widely accepted claims to ever exist is one that Descartes is credited with. “Cogito ergo sum”, which is Latin for “I think therefore I am” is that claim. Actually, “I think therefore I am” is one of the most recognized statements in philosophy. After deriving cogito, Descartes goes on in his response to offer his theory of ideas and to assert that a non-deceiving god does exist. This seems to be where Descartes goes wrong, nevertheless, his skeptical quest and his idea of the “great deceiver” certainly presents an interesting skeptical scenario. (Descartes,

Meditations)
Simulated World Theory
Another interesting skeptical scenario arises from a theory that is fairly modern in philosophy, Simulated World Theory. While Nick Bostrom might not be the originator of Simulated World Theory, his article, “Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?”, will be the main source I use to lay out Simulated Worlds Theory in this paper. After describing Simulated Worlds Theory, I will paint a picture of a skeptical scenario using the concepts of the theory.
In his article Bostrom starts talking about Simulated World Theory by first addressing what he believes is a crucial assumption necessary for his the success of his simulated world argument. Bostrom asserts that the philosophical concept of substrate-independence is that necessary assumption. He states that substrate-independence is “the idea that mental states can supervene on any of a broad class of physical substrates”. Next, Bostrom elaborates on the idea that technology will reach the stage where it is fully able to simulate humans’ mental capacities, their environments, and detail their past beliefs. Essentially, Bostrom claims that if technology continues to advance without any impediments