Uncertainty and Certainty Mathukumilli Siddartha 3. How does reason help and hinder self-understanding? Construct your argument by comparing two of the following—Montaigne, Descartes, and Pascal. According to Montaigne reason is a mode of thinking and a way of seeking understanding through anguish. Descartes on the other hand kind of agrees with Montaigne saying you always want to be thinking of the self, though you will never know.I find both Montaigne and Descartes to be highly opinionated and both seek self as a means to complete their meanings on existence. Montaigne puts forward in his writing that “If I talk too much about myself, I complain that all never even think about their own selves.” (‘On Repenting’,232-3). Wherein he clearly …show more content…
But they wear no breeches...” (“On the Cannibals,” 92). Descartes even uses rational argument to prove the existence of God, by aligning reason with god , showing that he can prove god exists because god is a rational being.But Descartes’ reasoning has a fatal flaw. Due to his exclusion of any sensory data , he depends on perfectionism. Since by his deduction existence has the quality of perfection and this requires the existence of a perfect being, and humans are not perfect , thus god as a perfect being must exist. He even gives the comparison that “Proof of god is as certain as a triangle.”However by his rejection of all external sensory perception and the non-existence of a perfect triangle, even with his geometrical derivation, this is negated. And his idea of perfection itself would be wrong in relation to god when he gives no definition to god other than his statement of existence for the sake of existing. So that leaves us with the question that if god is …show more content…
Montaigne places importance on reason by stating that we should be skeptical toward science in “our science … we have abandoned Nature...do not know how to impose limits of moderation.” (“On the Resemblance of Children to Their Fathers,”210) Here he clearly follows a logical reasoning and put forward the issue of knowing when science ends and morality begins. Similarly Montaigne states “It is my conviction that what makes for happiness is not, as Antisthenes said, dying happily, but living happily,” (“On Repenting,” 245) where he challenges the idea of living your life with repentance again following a logical conclusion. Descartes also by stating that the mind exists independent of the brain , show a crucial error in his reasoning. Since the brain is part of the body , and once cannot exist without the other. Also be rejecting external sensory data , and depending only on mathematical reasoning , he loses out on creating real certainty in most if not all his arguments such as the one about god and triangle.Therefore there are intangibilities in both statements that Montaigne does not utilize reason or consider it important and that Descartes reasoning is related to the truth. However, in general majority of their writing Descartes follows a systematic flow of reason to