Skepticism or Justified True Belief Elizabeth McIver ID: L25662046 PHIL 201 B06 Spring 2018 Abstract How do the Matrix, Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave”, and Descartes’ “Meditation 1 of the Things of Which We May Doubt” compare and contrast to each other? Also, can we truly depend on our senses to aid us in our quest for knowledge?
In the First Meditation, René Descartes called upon all knowledge to be doubtful. It was a significant reflection on how reality and dreams are vague. By eliminating previous knowledge and theories, Descartes wiped out every conceivable mistake in finding new establishments of information. An indisputable outcome of questioning the senses induced the chance that God is in actuality a malevolent liar, a powerful being capable of manipulating the senses. In the Second Meditation while he contemplates the previous day, he discovered trouble in solving his questions and deemed his senses and memory conniving and faulty.
Notre Dame ID: 902008117 In René Descartes ' Mediations on First Philosophy, Descartes abandons all previous notions or things that he holds to be true and attempts to reason through his beliefs to find the things that he can truly know without a doubt. In his first two meditations Descartes comes to the conclusion that all that he can truly know is that he exists, and that he is a thinking being. In his third meditation, Descartes concludes that he came to know his existence, and the fact that he is a thinking being, from his clear and distinct perception of these two facts. Descartes then argues that if his clear and distinct perception would turn out to be false, then his clear and distinct perception that he was a thinking being would not have been enough to make him certain of it (Blanchette).
Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver. “To prove that this non-deceiving God exists, Descartes finds in his mind a few principles he regards as necessary truths which are evident by the “natural light” which is the power or cognitive faculty for clear and distinct perception.” If arguments is presented in logical trains of thought, people could not help but to be swayed and to understand those arguments.
Rene Descartes’ statement, “I think, therefore, I am” laid the foundation for his Cogito Argument in the Mediations. Throughout his groundwork we come to interpret that “I think, whatever thinks, must exists, so I exist, and whatever exists is a thing, so I exist as a thinking thing”, and so he knew this with certainty. In the mediator’s search for certainty, Descartes had to disregard anything that was doubtful or wrong. He chose to lay a new canvas and threw away all his previous knowledge and understanding to start anew. And so, from here, Descartes searched for facts he knew with certainty.
This essay will now begin the task of laying out the objection to Descartes’
Anh Nguyen - PHIL 256 Final Descartes’s arguments for the existence of God and its fallacies Descartes (1596 – 1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician and scientist. At an early age, he received his education from the Jesuits and the experience with the Aristotelian ideals there upset him, yet the field of mathematics fascinated him with its precision, uniform certainty and necessity. This dissonance eventually planted a seed into his mind and drove him to question about the nature of knowledge, namely whether it can match mathematics’ indubitableness. Descartes’ attempts in resolving the problem resulted in his Meditations of First Philosophy (1641), which was written in response to queries regarding his new philosophical basis for a novel way to approach the system of knowledge. Upon its publication, Descartes’ Meditations provoked controversy among the Aristotelians – indeed it was an assault on the Aristotelian
For how he can be certain that 2+2= 4 and not 5, how can he know for sure that he is not being deceived into believing the answer to be 5 due to a demon. But even if an evil demon did indeed exist, in order to be misled, Descartes himself must exist. As there must be an “I”, that can be deceived. Conclusively, upon Descartes’ interpretations we can come to decipher that in order for someone to exist they must indeed be able to think, to exist as a thinking thing.
Ironically, in arguing that he has been deceived by his senses, Descartes also argues that we can see through these deceptions. I do not claim that we are never deceived, just that we can overcome such deceptions. Therefore we can trust our senses as long as we are aware and cautious. Thus, Descartes’ argument does not validate the degree of skepticism
Explain Descartes’ method of doubt. What is Descartes purpose in exercising this method? Descartes begins Meditation I by stating that in order for him to establish anything in the sciences that was constant, he would have to start from the foundations of all knowledge. By claiming this, he is adopting skepticism which is not him rejecting his beliefs, but doubting them.
Justified, true belief knowledge is only real if there is no conceivable doubt, but nothing can truly be inconceivable fact. In “Mediation I: What can be Called into Doubt”, Descartes tries to find solutions to this, but he only raises more questions about the world. Skepticism arises to challenge the idea of a perfect knowledge and to question the human mind and the world. Descartes reflects on the countless falsehoods he believed that became his knowledge about the world and wipes everything out of his mind to begin anew. Descartes starts with the foundations of knowledge, deciding only to accept opinions as truths when there isn't any conceivable doubt in his mind.
What is the difference between appearance and reality? It calls to mind the metaphysics of Plato and the Realm of the Forms. How do we know that material objects are not merely images of real objects in an inferior realm? These are the tough philosophical questions that this scene raises and that every philosopher must
Descartes and Hume. Rationalism and empiricism. Two of the most iconic philosophers who are both credited with polarizing theories, both claiming they knew the answer to the origin of knowledge and the way people comprehend knowledge. Yet, despite the many differences that conflict each other’s ideologies, they’re strikingly similar as well. In this essay I will attempt to find an understanding of both rationalism and empiricism, show the ideologies of both philosophers all whilst evaluating why one is more theory is potentially true than the other.
Descartes Methodological Doubt and Meditations Methodological doubt is an approach in philosophy that employs distrust and doubt to all the truths and beliefs of an individual to determine what beliefs he or she is certain are true. It was popularized by Rene Descartes who made it a characteristic method of philosophy where a philosopher subjects all the knowledge they have with the sole purpose of scrutinizing and differentiating the true claims from the false claims. Methodological doubt establishes certainty by analytically and tentatively doubting all the knowledge that one knows to set aside dubitable knowledge from the indubitable knowledge that an individual possesses. According to Descartes, who was a rationalist, his first meditation
What is republic? According to Plato republic is a way through that he made principles for behavior of human life. Plato studied about nature and value of justice. Plato studied other qualities like construction of society as a entire and in the nature of an individual human being.
