Descartes argues for skepticism in his Meditations, but I don’t think it is successful because it seems rational to conclude that although Descartes’ arguments are strong and logical, they aren’t sturdy enough to produce the necessary level of doubt. I believe that individuals can believe in their senses if we practice caution, that individuals can distinguish between a dream and reality, and that Descartes’ skepticism undermines itself.
Exposition
The First Meditation begins with the meditator, Rene Descartes, considering the amount of untrue beliefs throughout his life and the incorrect body of knowledge that followed. As a result, he is determined to remove all that he thinks he knows and is resolved to rebuild his body of knowledge on a more certain foundation. He proceeds by sitting alone near a fire so that he could carefully inspect his previous opinions. Descartes assumes that he only needs to find some reason to doubt his current beliefs, thus engendering him to replace the body of knowledge on which his beliefs
were built. Instead of doubting each of
…show more content…
To say that it is possible for there to be an evil demon whose singular purpose is to deceive me, is a claim that requires robust support which Descartes fails to do. Although Descartes contemplates unlikely possibilities in his process of doubt, he only proposes that such a thing could exist. Descartes’ skepticism position weakens his evil demon argument because if I’m in doubt, I’ll also doubt the possibility that an evil demon exists. So, my skepticism regarding the possibility of an evil demon reduces the greater doubt that is expected to be created by the evil demon. The evil demon must exists to create so much doubt, but Descartes doesn’t provide enough backing for possibility of the evil demon’s existence. This displays that Descartes’ evil demon argument doesn’t warrant the level of doubt he