René Descartes is known as one of the founders of rationalism, the idea that only reason and thoughts can form knowledge. He established this way of thinking in a try to disregard scepticism by meeting it on its own ground, as found in his first mediation in the dreaming argument, as well as the evil demon argument. In the following, both arguments will be explained and put into perspective of Descartes’ goals with his proof of God, to question their actual purpose in a way to oppose Descartes’ views. To understand the dreaming argument, Descartes’ methods are also to be understood. Descartes doubts empirically acquired knowledge radically, giving the possibility of dreaming. Dreams are able to lead us into believing that they are real by …show more content…
If our senses give us different signals, it is still us who put them together to a conclusion. If we hear a bell ring whenever we see a door open, it is not empirical knowledge to understand the connection between both these occurrences, but our mind working it out on its own, the reality or falsehood of the knowledge we have gained empirically not limiting the knowledge we can gain through reason. Still, this inner knowledge is to be treated with doubt. Because while these conclusions are possible, there is no indication that they are right in themselves. The information can be put together incorrectly without us even realizing. Descartes introduces an evil to illustrate something that is systematically able to mislead us. But even if an evil demon is fooling our minds and thoughts, there has to be something that is fooled. Descartes concludes that the mind itself exists no matter what, and he sees the undoubtingly true base of gaining knowledge in the process of thinking and reasoning itself, presenting a radical case of …show more content…
While we can be sure that they are using their brain, and therefore think in a way, it is difficult for us to follow if they are actually reasoning. Or more importantly: If they are able to reason enough to actually be considered a thinking, existing thing. Of course, a similar problem appears for any other human being. I can confirm for myself that I am thinking, and therefore being, but it is possible to disregard another person claiming this in a Descartes-fashion. Maybe, after all, I am just dreaming that they claim this. But everyone has been a baby once. Has our thinking thing already existed at that point, then? Or did we just pop into existence at some point of our development? Descartes’ arguments seem little completed if they are just able to state about the present, and not about the