Universal Doubt of Senses
We are taught, at a young age, how important our five senses are. These senses are essential to survival and are the necessary feedback for our existence. The question becomes though, what are really our senses? Touch, smell, sight, hearing, taste are the ones engrained into us, but there’s more to it, we can sense temperature, acceleration, movement, and even intangible things such as hostility, fear, or even someone or something’s gaze. While questioning why these are important and vital senses it raises a question of what is not included in the taught set of senses. Are senses real or are they a figment of our imagination created to give us a virtual reality? When people have senses that are better than others does that make our senses reliable? Rene Descartes ran into these questions himself in his Meditations on First. He distorted the perspective of senses by relabeling the concept of dreams, the beliefs of a powerful entity, and the mind itself. Descartes decides to call all individual opinions into doubt,
…show more content…
instead of demolishing them. Descartes concludes that sense perception provides no certainty since the sense experience never directly puts us in contact with objects themselves and only with mental images; however, I believe that the senses can be trusted because doubt is not always misleading, our senses put reality in perspective to understand the authenticity of our thoughts and feelings when questioning experience. Descartes questions how he came to learn of these assumptions and truths and concludes that he has learned them through his senses; “I have noticed that the senses are sometimes deceptive; and it is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once” (Descartes, 14). It is possible that we could be purely thought driven creatures and that our senses are merely conceived by imagination or parts of a dream, denying the actual existence of things we can sense. Descartes points out in his first mediation that the senses with respect to the external world, regarding the small and distant objects, may be deceptive. But, he believes that we are unable to distinguish between actual sensory experiences or imagined experiences, as of those in a dream, “there are no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep” (Descartes 14). Descartes here is saying that there is a possibility that everything we perceive could in fact be of hallucination or imagination. Descartes considered this but argued that the content in our dreams would have to be recorded or composed of real events, that we are dreaming about experience. Therefore we can’t simply only be dreaming as the content itself would need to be created and if we were simply dreaming no content would be created. Descartes makes a powerful argument against the perceptibility of senses and dreams; however, I believe that his arguments do not fully support his claims to the degree in which he critiques them. While correct in the claim that senses deceive us, his general arguments only justifies his argument that dreams are perception of reality developed by the mind. However, having cognitive awareness of imagination allows us to see through deception. For example in optical illusions such as in heat mirages the illusion allows us to perceive that we see a puddle of water, however as we approach it, it only grows further away. Eventually we learn that what we identify as a puddle of water a figment of our imagination. We can recognize when things are being mistaken versus being correct; we need to know that there are optical illusions, which allows us to see through the deception and avoid being deceived. When considering the alternate theory about why senses are deceptive one needs to consider a higher being or as Descartes refers to the “evil genius” or God (Descartes, 16). His idea of a higher being or entity clearly has the ability to make us believe anything, to make us feel, see, hear things that are not really there. The entity can compose events that are used to make dreams. This divine being did in fact create us so, indeed creation of false senses are a walk in the park. So the entity/God would have to also be deceiving in nature in order to mislead us in such a lengthy way. Descartes also broke down this theory by noting that it is not in Gods nature to be a deceiver, “it is quite obvious that he cannot be a deceiver, for it is manifest by the light of nature that all fraud and deception depend on some defect” (Descartes, 35). If God were deceiving us he would have not the ability to do badly.
We think that God is good and has created the universe. Being an omnipotent individual “nothing can be added to his [God] perfection” (Descartes, 32). Our divine being also has given us the ability to determine reliable sources, whether its food or friends. If God were to be deceptive in nature then why would he allow us to freely think in a way that would figure out the deceit? Another argument is that God would not let us know what deception is in the first place since it would imply imperfection and contradict the nature of God; “the ability to deceive seems to be an indication of cleverness or power, the will to deceive undoubtedly attests to maliciousness…deception is incompatible with God” (Descartes, 36). It would not be a concept familiar to us so we could never know of its existence. So this would clearly rule out Gods play in the fallacy of
senses. If we were to be deceived by some thing other than God such as a demon, our mind would be the one that would prevent us from being deceived. The demon would be able to manipulate all things external including senses. However, the demon would not be able to deceive our existence or self-awareness. Our mind has the capacity to judge information and feedback from our senses and make the ultimate decision. Descartes talks about the Wax and how it can change form as it melts going from a solid to liquid, changing size and shape. When the wax changes form its sensible qualities also change. Our perception of the sameness of the wax does not come from the senses, nor does it come from our imagination but through intellect alone, “It remains then for me to concede that I do not grasp what this wax is through the imagination; rather, I perceive it through the mind alone” (Descartes, 22). Our senses can tell us that this might be a different object entirely seeing it as a different size or feeling it at different temperature. However, our mind takes into account every form of the wax from our senses and deduces that this is still wax. Leaving our mind to be the investigator that will allow us to not be deceived of our existence through a more powerful entity. The Wax argument proves that the mind is more superior to the body, confirming the existence of the mind. “For from the fact that God is no deceiver, it follows that I am in no way mistaken in these matters.” (Descartes,59) He concludes that what he knows and that our senses indeed do exist because God exists and God does not deceive. However, this argument of an “evil genius” or omnipotent being can be defused by considering the topic of possibility. It is possible that we are deceived by an “evil genius” but it is also possible that such an individual does not exist. Descartes’s conclusion that God exists is a hasty and heavy claim, which would require strong support. In order for us to be deceived to such a great degree of doubt requires this “evil genius” or entity to exist, however, Descartes fails to support his conclusion of this possibility. Our doubt about the possibility of such an individual existing undermines our greater doubt of being deceived by this “evil genius”. So far all our senses may be real, its not to say that our senses are reliable as some have better senses than others and while some lose the sense all together. The average consensus seems to be that our senses are reliable. It would be interesting to see how Descartes would explain senses in our modern world though, especially with new technological advancements that are able to see (self driving cars), feel (touch probes), hear (microphones), and are able to make judgments from this feed back than senses are certainly real. The way to test accuracy is too see if the same result is yielded from different tests multiple times. In this case not only do the animals feel but so do the robots.
One cannot deny the senses however the mind is what allows the senses to even be perceived. Descartes broke his argument down so that it can be followed easily. This method virtually diminishes any counterarguments because he is basing it all on examples that are easy to grasp and relate to. His conclusion was based on solid fact building stating with the basics of the senses and guiding to his deeper understanding of what all the mind is and how it is distinct from the body through the body’s physical
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
Sense Perception is a way of knowing in which a person can acquire knowledge using their five senses - taste, touch, sight, sound and smell. Sense perception is an important in our understanding of the world, and is a source of much of the pleasure in our lives. But, can we trust our senses to give us the truth? This may come out as an odd question to many because according to experience and history it is known that humans greatly rely on sense perception as a means of survival. However, like all ways of knowing, sense perception has its weakness; our senses can easily be deceived. In his TED Talk, “Are we in control of our decisions?” behavioral economist Dan Ariely uses examples and optical illusions to demonstrate the roles, strengths and limitations of sense perception as a way of knowing.
Outline and assess Descartes' arguments for the conclusion that mind and body are distinct substances.
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 without a valley. We cannot believe or think of God without existence. We know the idea of God, and that idea inevitably contains his existence.
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:
Descartes believes “it is clear enough from this that he cannot be a deceiver, since it is manifest by the natural light that all fraud and deception depend on some defect” (89). In addition, to the third Meditation, Descartes further explains God’s existence as a non – deceiving entity of natural light in Meditation IV. Descartes stands with his position that God is perfection by saying “it is impossible that God should deceive me”. For in every case of trickery or deception some imperfection is found.
At the beginning of the very first meditation, Descartes states that he has lost his trust with his senses because they can be easily deceived (Descartes, 18). While dreaming sometimes it feels very real just as it does whi...
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...
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)
Descartes makes a careful examination of what is involved in the recognition of a specific physical object, like a piece of wax. By first describing the wax in a manner such that “everything is present in the wax that appears needed to enable a body to be known as distinctly as possible” (67), he shows how easily our senses help to conceive our perception of the body. But even if such attributes are modified or removed, we still recognize the changed form, as the same piece of wax. This validates Descartes’ claim that “wax itself never really is the sweetness of the honey, nor the fragrance of the flowers, nor the whiteness, nor the shape, nor the sound” (67), and the only certain knowledge we gain of the wax is that “it is something extended, flexible, and mutable” (67). This conclusion forces us to realize that it is difficult to understand the true nature of the wax, and its identity is indistinguishable from other things that have the same qualities as the wax. After confirming the nature of a human mind is “a thinking thing” (65), Descartes continues that the nature of human mind is better known than the nature of the body.
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes states “I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in as far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in as far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing”. [1] The concept that the mind is an intangible, thinking entity while the body is a tangible entity not capable of thought is known as Cartesian Dualism. The purpose of this essay is to examine how Descartes tries to prove that the mind or soul is, in its essential nature, entirely distinct from the
Descartes’ first two Meditations are arguably the most widely known philosophical works. Because of this, one can make the error of assuming that Descartes’ method of doubt is self-evident and that its philosophical implications are relatively minor. However, to assume this would be a grave mistake. In this paper, I hope to spread light on exactly what Descartes’ method of doubt is, and how, though it furnishes challenges for the acceptance of the reality of the external world, it nonetheless does not lead to external world skepticism.
The teaching of Descartes has influenced many minds since his writings. Descartes' belief that clear and distinct perceptions come from the intellect and not the senses was critical to his ultimate goal in Meditations on First Philosophy, for now he has successfully created a foundation of true and certain facts on which to base a sold, scientific belief structure. He has proven himself to exist in some form, to think and therefore feel, and explains how he knows objects or concepts to be real.
He quickly releases that this is the foundation of most of his beliefs. He first acknowledges that sometime our senses can deceive us, but say that our senses is mostly sturdy. It is after this that Descartes realizes that there has been times where he has been sleeping and in his dream he was certain that he was awake and sensing real objects. Though his current senses may have be dream senses, he suggests that even dream senses are drawn from our experience of us awake. He then discovers that there are times in which he cannot distinguish whether he is in his waking state and his dream state.