Descartes Second Meditations

Accepting that everything he previously believed might be false, Descartes presented himself as a skeptic of all types of knowledge. However, he clarified his scepticism is potentially temporary, as his goal while writing Meditations was to discern his true beliefs from the false. In order to eliminate the idea that all of his beliefs are erroneous, in his Second Meditation, Descartes attempts identify one piece of knowledge he is certain to be true. As a foundationalist, Descartes believed on the importance of an indubious believe that would serve as a foundation to his other beliefs. He claimed that if a belief was proven false, all the other beliefs built upon that foundation would also be proven false. Similarly, once an indubious belief

Regarding Gassendi, Descartes wrote, “I have not been able to discover a single objection which those who have some slight understanding of my Meditations will not, in my view, be able to answer quite easily without any help from me.” Concerning this specific objection, I must agree with Descartes’ commentary on Gassendi. A close reading of the First Meditation makes it very clear that Descartes intends to doubt everything. Not only is he doubting his knowledge of the exterior world, but also his knowledge of himself. In fact, in the beginning of the Second Meditation Descartes writes how he will believe everything to be false, his memory to tell lies, and reject all he learned from his senses. Descartes’ claim that he has a mind, which further proves his existence, is literally the first and only thing he is certain of. It appears odd to me that someone who read the First and Second Meditation would write an objection like Gassendi’s. By claiming we can infer our existence, indubitably, from any action, he is assuming that we know indubitably that we do engage in different actions. However, to the extent of the Second Meditation, Descartes has not even established he has a physical body. Thus, the claim that other actions can prove existence appears to me not only incorrect, but also oblivious. There is no proof we engage in any