Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Weaknesses and strengths of an essay
Weaknesses and strengths of an essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Weaknesses and strengths of an essay
What is the source of knowledge? What can we know? Questions like these dominated western philosophy during the 17th and 18th century. This philosophical period was known as the epistemological turn. The quest for the source of knowledge was not an easy one. This question had led to many disagreements about the nature of knowledge, and a philosophical war was waged which would last two centuries. It began with the 17th century with a french philosopher by the name of Rene Descartes. The answer to his epistemological quest was rationalism. For Descartes rationalism was the key to keeping our reality in check. Descartes had undergone a process of purging all that he thought he knew to find the sole source of knowledge . After much examination Descartes came to the realization that there were few things that could be considered pure knowledge. Since most of the things we know come from the senses, and the senses were falliable. He made a crucial discovery that would forever change the face of philosophy. The mind he regarded is the tool and the that could lead to a pure source of knowledge unbridled by the senses. He believed that we can only trust our minds that which we can intuit or “deduce” on our own. Descartes called these ideas of knowledge a priori. A priori are ideas that are innate, and that we can only arrive at through a special kind of reasoning known as deductive reasoning.Descartes famously declares the statement “cogito ergo sum “to answer the question of our existence. Because if the senses are decieving who is to say that this world we live in is a lie created by a wicked genius we call god.”Descartes believed that if he existed it was because his mind was engaged in the process of thinking. In other words only ...
... middle of paper ...
...d around, and the empiricists and rationalists have managed to build and destroy certain views in ways that make my head spin, but Kant’s view will always fascinate me. Not only because he constructs a world that we are not the center of, and he boils reality down to mental conceptions. He makes one wonder about this world of impossibility. He realizes that as human beings we yearn to know and believe, and search for answers to an infinite amount of possibilities, and there is a lot of truth to this. We still search for and ask questions which cannot easily be answered because our reason propels to. As Kant once said “Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore,but which, as transcending all its powers also not able to answer.
Rene Descartes’ third meditation from his book Meditations on First Philosophy, examines Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. The purpose of this essay will be to explore Descartes’ reasoning and proofs of God’s existence. In the third meditation, Descartes states two arguments attempting to prove God’s existence, the Trademark argument and the traditional Cosmological argument. Although his arguments are strong and relatively truthful, they do no prove the existence of God.
The source of knowledge is not a topic that is universally agreed upon. To rationalists, who usually have a sense of the divine, innate ideas give them cause to base knowledge in reason, being derived from ideas. To empiricists, who do not hold innate ideas to be valid, knowledge is unearthed through the senses, derived from observations. The presence of a concept of the divine is the deciding factor of whether knowledge originates from the senses or the ideas.
The next stage in the system, as outlined in the Meditations, seeks to establish that God exists. In his writings, Descartes made use of three principal arguments. The first (at least in the order of presentation in the Meditations) is a causal argument. While its fullest statement is in Meditation III, it is also found in the Discourse (Part IV) and in the Principles (Part I §§ 17–18). The argument begins by examining the thoughts contained in the mind, distinguishing between the formal reality of an idea and its objective reality. The formal reality of any thing is just its actual existence and the degree of its perfection; the formal reality of an idea is thus its actual existence and degree of perfection as a mode of mind. The objective reality of an idea is the degree of perfection it has, considered now with respect to its content. (This conception extends naturally to the formal and objective reality of a painting, a description or any other representation.) In this connection, Descartes recognized three fundamental degrees of perfection connected with the capacity a thing has for independent existence, a hierarchy implicit in the argument of Meditation III and made explicit in the Third Replies (in response to Hobbes). The highest degree is that of an infinite substance (God), which depends on nothing; the next degree is that of a finite substance (an individual body or mind), which depends on God alone; the lowest is that of a mode (a property of a substance), which depends on the substance for its existence.
In the New Merriam Webster Dictionary, sophism is defined as a plausible but fallacious argument. In Rene Descartes Meditation V, he distinguishes the existence of God, believing he must prove that god exists before he can examine any corporeal objects outside of himself. By proving that the existence of God is not a sophism, he also argues that God is therefore the Supreme Being and the omnipotent one. His conclusion that God does exist enables him to prove the existence of material things, and the difference between the soul and the body.
This essay will focus on discussing the way people used to live and the beliefs they had about God being the creator and controller of the universe during the middle ages or the pre modern times by first describing what pre modernity is then following with the dynamics of that time. This essay will then discuss Descartes the father of modernity together with some other contributing philosophers, and how he changed the beliefs of the middle ages prior to the way in which people now see themselves as subjects which can give meaning to objects and are free to choose whatever meaning they want to give to themselves and their surroundings.
“Cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am.” A mathematician, scientific thinker, and metaphysician Rene Descartes used this term in his “Meditation on First Philosophy.” This term has become famous especially in western philosophy. However, this term was not Descartes only legacy. His legacies include the development of the Cartesian coordinates, philosophical books, and theories. Even though the distinction between mind and body can be traced to the Greeks, Descartes account of the mind and body relationship has been considered the first and the most influential. Descartes was born in 1596 in France, from 1628 to 1649 Descartes remained in Holland, during this time he composed multiple works that set the scene for all later philosophical study of mind and body. (René Descartes and the legacy of mind/body dualism) “Meditation on First Philosophy,” is one of Descartes famous treatises. First published in the 17th century, it consists of six meditations. In the first meditation Descartes eliminates all belief in things that are not certain, basically he removes everything from the table. Then one by one he examines each belief and determines whether any of these beliefs can be known for sure. Meditations three and five focus on the existence of God. This ontological argument is both fascinating and poorly understood in the philosophical community. Descartes tries to prove God’s existence by using simple but influential foundations. (Nolan). Descartes innate ideas proof and ontological proof of the existence of God is going to be assessed through the summarization of meditation thee and meditation five, while his work is also going to be compared to Anselm’s ontological argument on the existence of God.
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.
Knowing where knowledge comes from was a huge focus for philosophers. However many of the philosophers argue on the origin of knowledge. Some believe that it comes from the senses and some believe that it comes from reason alone. Others can be somewhere in between or have completely other ideas. However, it is most interesting to compare opposing views on where knowledge comes from. John Locke and Plato are two famous philosophers who have completely opposing of their views on where knowledge comes from, but they have reasons behind their opinions.
In this essay I intend to critically analyse the role of God in Descartes epistemology and ultimately illustrate the flaws in Descartes’ attempt to use God to explain the attainment of knowledge. The focus of this analysis will be on the ‘Meditation of First philosophy’. I will, illustrate the flawed reasoning within his arguments through my own observations of the text and secondary sources. First I will look at Descartes aim within the meditations, secondly, his use of God to dispel the evil deceiver possibility, before arguing that Descartes was unsuccessful in his attempt to use God as a foundation for his epistemology through analysing and critiquing Descartes two primary arguments for the existence of God and his role in the attainment of knowledge.
Throughout the six meditations on First Philosophy, French philosopher Rene Descartes seeks to find a concrete foundation for the basis of science, one which he states can only include certain and unquestionable beliefs. Anything less concrete, he argues will be exposed to the external world and to opposition by philosophical sceptics.
Finally, Kant saw the world as he wanted to see it, not the reality of it. In reality human beings are social animals that can be deceived, and can become irrational, this distinction is what makes us human, and it is that which makes us make mistakes. Kant states good arguments in his essay however his belief that people are enslaved and shackled by the “guardians” when he writes “shackles of a permanent immaturity” (Kant, 1) is sometimes absurd when the same guardians are the people that encourage our minds of thinking.
...ll true knowledge is solely knowledge of the self, its existence, and relation to reality. René Descartes' approach to the theory of knowledge plays a prominent role in shaping the agenda of early modern philosophy. It continues to affect (some would say "infect") the way problems in epistemology are conceived today. Students of philosophy (in his own day, and in the history since) have found the distinctive features of his epistemology to be at once attractive and troubling; features such as the emphasis on method, the role of epistemic foundations, the conception of the doubtful as contrasting with the warranted, the skeptical arguments of the First Meditation, and the cogito ergo sum--to mention just a few that we shall consider. Depending on context, Descartes thinks that different standards of warrant are appropriate. The context for which he is most famous, and on which the present treatment will focus, is that of investigating First Philosophy. The first-ness of First Philosophy is (as Descartes conceives it) one of epistemic priority, referring to the matters one must "first" confront if one is to succeed in acquiring systematic and expansive knowledge.
In an effort to provide a comprehensive critical survey I have chosen to focus this essay on the argument put forth by Kant and the objections and counter argument’s raised by Elizabeth Anscombe and Soren Kierkegaard. I have chosen to include and discuss two contrasting theories to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of Kant’s moral argument. Kant’s argument was founded on practical rationality; he argued that for moral behavior to be rational it must have a reason. Kant ultimately argued that the only rational explanation was the existence of God and an afterlife (Kant 2002a,
Descartes defines knowledge as doubt and uncertainty. He describes that our main source of knowledge is our sense perception.