I. Introduction
This paper is an evaluation of the argument Descartes presents about the possibility of the influence of an evil demon influencing manipulating and deceiving us through our senses. The second section is to describe the method of doubt and how it progresses to the third section which evaluates the progression through the evil spirit argument. Fourth, is how one can take both the method of doubt and the evil spirit argument and come to the conclusion that one still exists and is a thinking being. I reject Descartes argument that he thinks, therefore he exists, because deceit may lead to existence but it cannot prove that one is a thinking thing, for even the existence of all thought could be the product of that very deceit.
II. The Method of Doubt
To start the evaluation, I am using the text from page 10 to analyze the information to find the main points that leads to his conclusion that one cannot believe anything learned through the senses.
1. I have been deceived by my senses.
2. It is never prudent to trust completely
…show more content…
341). Descartes fails to counterbalance the possibility that the Evil Spirit is tricking him into thinking that he has these doubts. If this is true, it still proves that he does exist, but it still does not prove that he is a thinking thing. By Descartes own definition, in order for him to be a thinking being he would have the abilities of perceiving intellect and understanding. This cannot be true because of his argument that the evil spirit is deceiving him. Therefore, Descartes could not even perceive his own mind. Since he cannot perceive his own mind he cannot exist. If Descartes is being deceived to have doubts and understanding, then he could also be falsely informed that he has consciousness. If the Evil Spirit exists, then Descartes cannot be a thinking
In constructing his argument for God's existence, Descartes analyzes several aspects of the nature of human thought. He begins by outlining the various types of thoughts we have, which include ideas, thoughts, volitions and judgments. Ideas, or images of ideas can only exist within the mind and are certain of existence. Volitions, or choices are firmly within the mind and are also certain. Emotions, such as love, fear, hate, all exist in the mind and are certain as well. Judgments involve reference to effects outside the mind and are subject to doubt. Therefore, judgments are not certain and distinct. Descartes believes that images, volitions, and emotions are never false but it is our judg...
Descartes argument for his existence came from the doubt he had about everything around him. This doubt was generated by the idea of an evil genius. Descartes invented the evil genius to be an all-powerful and all-deceitful being. By creating the possibility of an evil genius, Descartes found the doubt he needed in order to be able to doubt everything he once believed. The evil genius was able to deceive ...
In his quest for absolute, firm knowledge, Descartes eventually reaches a standstill that could prevent him from moving forward on his journey. This obstacle manifests itself in the form of an evil deceiver, a malicious entity with the ability to distort Descartes’ perceptions and trick him into believing a false claim to be truthful. The evil deceiver would endlessly mislead Descartes into thinking that an aspect of life were true. Given the power of this evil deceiver, Descartes would never know if the truths that he is reaching are in fact truthful. This conundrum in which Descartes finds himself encourages him to find some mechanism to counter the idea of an evil deceiver. Descartes realizes that the existence of God will eradicate the fear
He assumes nothing is certain and argued “So after considering about that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind” (Descartes, p354). It is the proposition for Descartes, so to be sure that “I” can doubt, “I” must exist. For him, even the body or the nature of body and “For, according to my judgement, the power of self-movement, like the power of sensation or of thought, was quite foreign to the nature of a body; indeed, it was a source of wonder to me that certain bodies were found to contain faculties of this kind” do not exist, but he is stills existing because these stuff are separable from “I”. Within his example of dreaming, he has already assumed that we do not have body, and this self-movement surely disappear without a body. So this kind of things is weak to prove the existence of “I”. However, “At least I have discovered it- thought; this alone is inseparable from me” (Descartes, p355). Then because “I” have thought, that is I can think, Descartes claimed “I” am a thinking thing. That
Descartes’ argument for the existence of God begins with him describing himself as a thinking thing (157). Descartes casted doubt on almost
He claims “cogito, ergo sum,” meaning I think, therefore I am. By saying this Descartes shows that in order to be thinking you must exist and therefore are not the puppet of an Evil Demon. As said by Keith Crome in his essay on the Evil Demon, “as Descartes observes, for all that there is an all-powerful and cunning deceiver dedicated to constantly deceiving he cannot bring it about that I am nothing, because it is indubitable that if I am deceived, I exist.” This just points to the fact that in order to be controlled and realize the fact you must actually have to be real. And to that point if there were to be an evil demon controlling all our actions, why would he allow for the doubt that we are in charge that gives rise to the theory itself? If it was truly in control, wouldn’t we go about life never questioning whether or not we are real? In relation to my initial answer, the evil demon does not change much, because either he is or he isn’t, and there is no certain way to know. All we have for certain is “I think, therefore I am” to prove that we are thinking beings and that is enough to contradict the Evil
Unless he could be absolutely certain of something he would refuse to accept it as a basis for true knowledge. He could doubt his senses because they were sometimes deceived, by illusions or trickery. Dreams were experiences that seemed real but were not. He doubted his reason because he sometimes made mistakes in reasoning. As a cure to his repeated opinions, he supposed that there was some powerful demon who could deceive him completely, so that if there was a doubt about anything he would have to treat that thing as false. He had to be there to be deceived. Whatever happened he was still there, the demon could not make him doubt that. This is the famous saying 'Cogito Ergo Sum' or 'I think, therefore I am'. Whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have collected either from the senses or through the senses. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and to never trust completely those who have deceived us even once. (Meditations on First Philosophy). There was a question which was referred to by 'I'? To answer this question Descartes suggested another round of doubt. He decided that his demon was capable of deceiving him into believing that he had even a body, any process related to his body was, therefore, subject to doubt. Finally, he hit upon the answer: Descartes concludes that he is a thinking thing, and he could exist without a body. It is at this point where most people find a major barrier if our minds are not a part of the extended universe, ie. have no physical properties. Spinoza suggested that physical things and mental things were just aspects (or modes) of the substance of the universe. Thus they were, in fact, different aspects of the same thing, and a complete explanation of the physical aspects of the mind could not include any details on the mental aspects and vice versa. This answer
Understanding Descartes’ philosophy begins with understanding his method of doubt. Think about it like this. Almost everything you believe to be true comes from the senses or through the senses. However, the senses are sometimes deceptive. Since the senses are not completely trustworthy, it is irrational to place complete trust in them. However it is no small leap of faith to presume that everything our senses tells us is false. In fact, it seems almost preposterous to say such a thing. But as Descartes points out, we have dreams regularly and in these dreams everything we experience is a figment of our imagination, or at least not real in the physical sense. So, at least according to Descartes, it is reasonable to doubt everything our senses tell us, for the time being. Now, using similar logic, we can say that everything we have learned from physics, astronomy, medicine, and other such fields are all doubtful. Descartes even believed we could say that such simple, logical statements as 2+3 = 5 or a square has 4 sides could be conceived to be false. “Since I judge that others sometimes make mistakes in matters that they believe they know most perfectly, may I not, in like fashion, be deceived every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square…'; We are now at the point where we are doubting everything – the world around us, that we have a body, and anything else that we could possibly...
Descartes’ first two Meditations are arguably the most widely known philosophical works. Because of this, one can make the error of assuming that Descartes’ method of doubt is self-evident and that its philosophical implications are relatively minor. However, to assume this would be a grave mistake. In this paper, I hope to spread light on exactly what Descartes’ method of doubt is, and how, though it furnishes challenges for the acceptance of the reality of the external world, it nonetheless does not lead to external world skepticism.
One of Rene Descartes’ major culminations in Meditations on First Philosophy is “I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind” (Descartes:17). This statement can be explicated by examining Descartes’ Cartesian method of doubt and his subsequent discovery of basic truths. Even though I do believe that Descartes concludes with a statement that is accurate: cogito ergo sum, there are areas of his proof that are susceptible to defamation. These objections discover serious error with Descartes’ method used in determining the aforementioned conclusion.
Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.
“We owe the notion of “the mind” as a separate entity in which “processes” occur to the same period, and especially to Descartes” (Rorty, 2008, p. 234). Plato was the first philosopher to argue that there was something beyond our body. Descartes agree with Plato on this theory and explored this idea more in-depth. Stating that these innate ideas exist, but they remain idle in our minds until a significant event awakens them. He arrived at this idea by doubting everything that he was taught was the truth, and he even doubted his own sense saying that they were deceptive, and after using philosophy of doubt he came to the realization of his existence through the logical reasoning. After he established that his senses were not real, he began to doubt his brain, he stated that our dreams are an interpretation of reality, even though they seem so real. He says that it was only thr...
Within meditation one Descartes subjects all of his beliefs regarding sensory data and even existence to the strongest and most hyperbolic of doubts. He invokes the notion of the all powerful, malign demon who could be deceiving him regarding sensory experience and even his understanding of the simplest mathematical and logical truths in order to attain an indubitable premise that is epistemologically formidable. In meditation one Descartes has three areas of doubt, doubt of his own existence, doubt of the existence of God, and doubt of the existence of the external world. Descartes’ knowledge of these three areas are subjected to three types of scepticism the first where he believes that his senses are being deceived ‘these senses played me false, and it is prudent never to trust entirely those who have once deceived us’. The second of the forms of scepticism revolves around whether Descartes is dreaming or not ‘I see so clearly that there are no conclusive signs by means of which one can distinguish between being awake and being asleep’. The aforementioned malign demon was Descartes third method of doubt as he realised God would not deceive him.
Rene Descartes’ natural light is his saving grace, and not Achilles’ heel. Descartes incorporates the concept of natural light within his epistemology in order to establish the possibility of knowing things completely without doubt. In fact whatever is revealed to the meditator via the natural light is considered to be indefeasible. The warrant for the truth of these ideas does not rely on experience or the senses. Rather the truth of the idea depends on viewing the concept through clear and distinct perception. Descartes’ “I am, I exist”, (Med. 2, AT 7:25) or the ‘cogito’ is meant to serve as the basis for knowing things through clear and distinct perception. Descartes’ cogito is the first item of knowledge, although one may doubt such things as the existence of the body, one cannot doubt their ability to think. This is demonstrated in that by attempting to doubt one’s ability to think, one is engaging in the action of thought, thus proving that thinking is immune to doubt. With this first item of knowledge Descartes can proceed with his discussion of the possibility of unshakeable knowledge. However, Descartes runs into some difficulty when natural light collides with the possibility of an evil genie bent on deceiving the meditator thus putting once thought concrete truths into doubt. Through an analysis of the concept of natural light I
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.