Descartes Evil Genius Problem Analysis

I. Descartes – Evil Genius Problem

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DESCARTES’ THEORY

The Doubts about the Evil Genius Doubt

1. Existence of evil genius?

Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions. While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is hardly a solid basis upon which to build the degree of doubt required by

Descartes. Ironically, his skepticism undercuts itselfto the degree that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be such a deceiver. As such, my doubt about the possibility of

Arguments Revolving Around This Theory

1. An interesting conversation between Gassendi and Descartes

Gassendi: “There is just one point I am not clear about, namely why you did not make a simple and brief statement to the effect that you were regarding your previous knowledge as uncertain so that you could later single out what you found to be true. Why instead did you consider everything as false, which seems more like adopting a new prejudice than relinquishing an old one? This strategy made it necessary for you to convince yourself by imagining a deceiving God or some evil demon who tricks us, whereas it would surely have been sufficient to cite the darkness of the human mind or the weakness of our nature.”

Descartes: “Suppose a person had a basket full of apples and, being worried that some of the apples were rotten, wanted to take out the rotten ones to prevent the rot spreading. How would he proceed? Would he not begin by tipping the whole lot out of the basket? And would not the next step be to cast his eye over each apple in turn, and pick up and put back in the basket

Interestingly enough, the famous Descartes ' words, "I think, therefore I am”, highlight this belief.

Although the way her proved this had many flaws (as we pointed out in the first section of our report), the groundwork for interactionism is still the same.

5. Materialism

“Only physical matter around us is real”, is what this view says. The functioning of body is affected by materialistic factor and not mental factors. If mental properties exist, they do not affect our physical body. Materialists are divided on the view, if mental factors exists. Some believe that they do not exist at all, while others claim them to be identical to brain.

Greeks, Aristotle and Democritus were the earliest believers of Materialism.

Epiphenomenalism is a type of materialism, with view that mind is byproduct of brain and other physical factors.

6. Occasionalism

This view justifies all our actions as an act of God. God follows us around all day. And when our mind instructs our body to do something or vice versa, God makes it happen.

This argument may sound imbecile, because when people couldn’t find a solution to

MindBody

problem: They solved it by justifying it as an act of Almighty.

When we want to move across the room, our brain tells our body to move. But