Descartes vs. Pascal
For centuries, human beings have been debating over the validity of the use of reason. This is a very, very difficult subject to discuss, as one is forced to study something which is at that moment being used in their study.
Two classic thinkers who contrasted on their view of reason were Descartes and
Pascal. Though both saw reason as the primary source of knowledge, they disagreed over the competence of human reason. Descartes, the skeptic, said that we could use reason to find certain truth if we used it correctly, while
Pascal said that we can't know certain truth, but reason is the best source of knowledge that we have.
Descartes:
Reason is the tool by which we know everything that we know. But most people make the mistake of basing their reasoning on assumptions which are not known with 100% certainty. As I've said, “I am greatly astonished when I consider [the great feebleness of mind] and its proneness to fall [insensibly] into error” (K&B, p. 409). But it is possible to avoid falling into error if we use the valuable tool of reason correctly. In order to do this and find certainty, we must find something that we cannot doubt. This is impossible, as we can logically doubt anything. A certain truth must be something that is not logically possible to be false.
We must doubt, as that is the only way to find certain truth. It is the only way to wipe the slate clean of all of the uncertain assumptions which are believed and taught in the universities today. Just as mathematics will lead to uncertain assumptions if it is not built on certain truths, so will all use of reason lead to uncertain assumptions if it is not built on certain truths.
There is a way to use doubt, though, to find certainty. If 100% certainty equals 0% doubt and we are certain that we can doubt everything, then we can use doubt as our certainty. We cannot doubt that we are doubting.
With our one certainty, we can now methodically use reason to find more certainties. For example, we can use the certainty “I am doubting” to find out that “I exist.” If I am doubting, than there must be an “I” who is doubting, which means that I must be. Like I've often said, “I think, therefore I am.”
We can continue building on our certainties using rationa...
... middle of paper ...
...e knowledge.
Watson:
I agree with Pascal on his view of the capabilities of reason. We are feeble, misled creatures in the midst of a reality which we cannot know.
Descartes was correct in his attempt to use mathematical logic to get rid of uncertain assumptions and find truth, but he needs to realize that most truth is beyond our reach. We, as thinking humans, do have the remarkable ability to study ourselves. Yet we have limitations in this study and cannot expect to be able to get a complete grasp of ourselves. Pascal was right on when he said that there are no complete skeptics. There are many things which we must accept, using reason, that we cannot prove with certainty.
I don't lean quite as far in Pascal's direction on his view of intuitionism. I believe that there is intuitive knowledge which we know with our heart. But this knowledge is only believed correctly when it is rationally processed. As with almost everything, we must find a balance between the use of reason and intuition. We err on the side of believing unreasonably if we use too much intuition, we become too skeptical if we ignore intuitive knowledge.
...k, therefore I am, was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it.” 4
The other answer to the question is that faith is doubt. This basis relies on the fact that since there is so little proof, one must doubt therefore one must have faith.
Rene Descartes was a French Philosopher, and is often referred to as “The Father of Modern Philosophy”. According to Descartes it is useless to claim something is real unless we understand how a claim could be known as justifiable belief. To say our beliefs are justified we have to base them of a belief that is itself indubitable (impossible to doubt). Descartes states that a belief that is indubitable provides a foundation in which all beliefs can be grounded from.
In the book "Meditations on First Philosophy", author talks about knowledge and doubt. He considers doubt and knowledge a very strong tool and thus, states a philosophical method which is actually an extraordinarily powerful investigation of mind, body and rationalism. He formulates six meditations in this book, where he first discards all of his previous beliefs where things are not completely certain and then he tries to build things that can be surely known. He believed that people should do their own discerning and by using the process of simple mathematics, they could proceed on a path to an unquestioned knowledge. He wrote these meditations in a way supposing that he has meditated for six days, referring each last meditation as ‘yesterday’.
all things. The tools we humans use to do this are logic and the scientific
exist. For it is impossible to persuade nothing of something, so our existence is solely dependent on the fact that
The question now is how are we to doubt everything? Descartes claims that we are fooled by our minds, meaning we do not really know what is false or not. For instance, one a hot day you look at a the ground at a distance and think you see water, but in reality the heat rising from the ground which from a certain angle looks like water but then when you get closer you see the ground not water. In addition, Descartes que...
. . . the truths whose discovery has cost the most effort, which at first could be grasped only by men capable of profound thought, are soon carried further and proved by methods that are no longer beyond the reach of ordinary intelligence. (Condorcet)
In “The principles of human knowledge” George Berkeley responds to the skeptics view about the external world. As we already talked about, skepticism is against the belief that you can know anything because even saying that you “know” something is a big contradiction itsel...
that Descartes, whose First Meditation sets up the argument for modern skepticism, has in the existence of God.
Some of the first major philosophical works that I read were Descartes’ Meditations. In his first Meditation, Descartes writes about the idea of skepticism. This is when I was exposed to the topic of skepticism and I found myself interested in the idea right from the start. Skepticism is one of the most popular topics in epistemology. It is also not a topic that only appeals to philosophers. Skepticism is a topic that draws many people’s attention because it is an idea that rocks the cores of many of the beliefs that are closest to us. After all, some of the concepts that follow from the idea of skepticism are ones such as we might not actually have any knowledge of the world or the world, as we know it, might not actually be real. Skeptical scenarios prove to be both intriguing and intimidating. Responses to skepticism usually turn out to be satisfying in some ways but carry unwanted baggage in other ways. Overall, skepticism is a topic that much thought has been dedicated to and one that has led to many philosophical developments. In this paper, I will touch upon
...onclude by saying that there are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false. It depends upon perception, emotions, reasoning and language. And therefore we cannot prove anyone wrong by saying that this is the perfect or right way of looking at things as every individual has different perceptions based on reasoning, emotions and language. So one should learn to accept other people’s opinions and perceptions as nobody is likely to have a same perception like others. The distinctions would be relative in various areas of knowledge like the ones discussed above.
...feasibility' and 'Causal' theories, and knowledge as 'warranted true belief' require us to take a certain 'leap of faith' when considering the question of knowledge at times. In order to avoid scepticism, I hold that knowledge does not necessarily need to be infallible, but rather probable. This does not mean that a proposition does not need to be true, it means that something we hold as knowledge is not one which is beyond reasonable doubt, but one which it wouldn't make sense to doubt. Yes, we have an obligation to avoid doxastic errors by reflecting on our belief-forming processes and by adjusting them in pursuit of reliability, but we also need to make a reasonable link between reality and truth to the extent that a proposition becomes senseless to doubt. So, although Gettier problems may be inescapable, this does not mean we are starved of knowledge completely.
Rene Descartes, a 17th century French philosopher believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. His Discourse on Method (1637) and Meditations (1641) contain his important philosophical theories. Intending to extend mathematical method to all areas of human knowledge, Descartes discarded the authoritarian systems of the scholastic philosophers and began with universal doubt. Only one thing cannot be doubted: doubt itself. Therefore, the doubter must exist. This is the kernel of his famous assertion Cogito, ergo sum (I am thinking, therefore I am existing). From this certainty Descartes expanded knowledge, step by step, to admit the existence of God (as the first cause) and the reality of the physical world, which he held to be mechanistic and entirely divorced from the mind; the only connection between the two is the intervention of God.
What is stated above happens around us all the time. Something might be proven today, but proven wrong tomorrow. Therefore I completely agree to this statement. But how do we accept something to be knowledge, and what makes one thing knowledge and the other thing just a theory? We can look at it from various aspects.