Montaigne
Montaigne in his Apology for Raymond Sebond begins his exploration into the human capacity for knowledge with this belief that only though God can one achieve true knowledge. God is the only infinite, all seeing, being with divine wisdom. He is not subject to the laws and rules of the human domain, and he exists in a realm outside of human comprehension. God is an unchanging, permanent being, and only from this state can the concept of truth propagate.
Montaigne believes that the one tie that binds all truth is this idea of permanence. Montaigne even states, “Truth must be the same everywhere” (xxvi). He insists that the only product of humanity that has withstood the test of time and has not changed since its inception was the Catholic Church. The dogma of the Catholic is categorized as, “What has been held always, everywhere by all”. The strength in the Catholic faith comes from its static nature, which provides a source of truth for humanity. Catholic truth is in strict conformity with the existence of God, and knowledge can only come from an almighty source.
Montaigne goes on to say that, “No creature ever is: a creature is always shifting, changing, becoming.” Man embodies the idea of impermanence. He is fragmented, does not have divine reasoning abilities, and has a finite amount of time allotted to him. Human reasoning, which creates the concept of knowledge, is in direct confrontation with the qualities of truth. Plato Aristotle, and Sexius Empiricus all conceded the fact that when it comes to the human being, there is no exact standard of truth. All humans view the concept of truth differently, and thus, it can only be associated to an opinion. Like wise a mortal man cannot know everything there is to know about a certain being, or structure or thing. He cannot possibly know the inner workings of such thing only through the use of his senses, he can only for his own opinions.
Opinions in a finite domain are susceptible to different interpretations and uncertainty, and what is true for one person does not necessarily have to hold true for another. Thus, the concept of truth derived by man is ridden with inconsistencies, all of which are in direct violation with the very definition of truth. Since the building block of human knowledge is this flawed truth, then human knowledge itself is flawed. Sim...
... middle of paper ...
...hem” (Montaigne 20).
On the subject of reasoning Montaigne offers the story of Chysippus and the fox. He tells how Chysippus watched the actions of a dog when it came upon three crossroads when trying to catch up to his master. The dog tries both the first and second paths, by inspecting the furiously and when he had not found any sign, charged down the third path with out even a hint of hesitation. The dog reasoned that his master had gone as far as these roads and had picked on of the three. The first two showed no trace of what he was looking for, so his master had inevitably had gone down the third path. Chysippus noted that the dog did not even attempt to sniff the third path but instead relied on its power of reasoning (Montaigne 28). This story is just one of many that displays the innate and associative reasoning skills of animals, which though rarely observed, destroys the exceptional nature of the human mind.
In addtion to his Apology for Raymond Sebond, Montatinge also analzes the basis of man-made knowledge in his, Essays. In this book Montaigne shows how again truth is based on opinion alone, and this opinon is swayed by a familiarity one’s own culture.
Rene Descartes was a 17th Century mathematician and French Philosopher whose life's work focused on providing a new prospective on the human perception of reality. The definition of this reality is seen as Descartes greatest life goal. Coined as the "Father of Modern Philosophy," (Cunningham & Reich, 2010, p. 385), Descartes laid the groundwork the philosophy and reality as we perceive it today. Descartes autobiography, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences (Descartes, 2004) shares with the reader a glimpse into the mind of a brilliant, yet frail, man who provided an in depth explanation on the perception of human existence and the reality we live in today. The works, shortened to Discourse on Method for the modern day, outlined in Cunningham & Reich (2010), focuses on Descartes's proof as to the existence of God and is the crux of his argument and stance on the reality of man.
Once Descartes has realized that he can know with certainty that “I exist” is true, he continues to build on his foundation of truths. The truth about the nature of God, proof of God’s existence, and the nature of corporeal objects are considered, among others, after Descartes proves his existence. Descartes’ principal task in the Meditations was to devise a system that would bring him to the truth. He wanted to build a foundation from which all further philosophical inquiry could be built. It was essential that his beliefs were sound. If any one of them were at all in doubt, then it put the credibility of the whole structure of knowledge in jeopardy. I will discuss a few of the topics Descartes analyzes after his epiphany of existence. Throughout the essay, I will raise some doubts that I have pertaining to Descartes’ conclusions as well.
Montaigne and Descartes both made use of a philosophical method that focused on the use of doubt to make discoveries about themselves and the world around them. However, they doubted different things. Descartes doubted all his previous knowledge from his senses, while Montaigne doubted that there were any absolute certainties in knowledge. Although they both began their philosophical processes by doubting, Montaigne doubting a constant static self, and Descartes doubted that anything existed at all, Descartes was able to move past that doubt to find one indubitably certainty, “I think, therefore I am”.
What exactly is “truth”? And how do we arrive at the truth? Over these past weeks I have successfully be able to study two different but very closely linked methods of arriving at what we human beings know as truth. Introduced to the method of pragmatism by William James, I have concluded that pragmatism uses an approach in which reason is used to find what is true but what also has to be considered is that the truth is subject to change. Which distinguishes it from Rene Descartes' method of pursuing what is true. Essentially they follow the same procedures. Although at the final moments of my research, I began to find myself pro-pragmatism. I disbelieve Descartes claim that the mind believes everything that is perceived through the human eye which leaves no room for an imagination. Both James and Descartes differ in some areas while maintaing similarities in others. Whether its concerning the way their visions are presented, their interpretations of the truth, or how applicable the idea of it is to our lives.
Descartes explored the different relationships that exist between the senses, the imagination, and the understanding and while he cleared them, one thing still needs to be brought to light. It is only through calling into question and doubting our judgments ( brought to us by sense perception) that we avoid error, “ but since everyday pressures don’t always allow us to pause and check so carefully, it must be admitted that human life is vulnerable to error about particular things, and we must acknowledge that weakness of our nature” ( 35).
means that it must be fixed and unchanging. He believed that truth is form separated from
Rationalists would claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empiricists would answer that knowledge is derived from the senses or impressions. The difference between these two philosophical schools of thought, with respect to the distinction between ideas and impressions, can be examined in order to determine how these schools determine the source of knowledge. The distinguishing factor that determines the perspective on the foundation of knowledge is the concept of the divine.
How we approach the question of knowledge is pivotal. If the definition of knowledge is a necessary truth, then we should aim for a real definition for theoretical and practical knowledge. Methodology examines the purpose for the definition and how we arrived to it. The reader is now aware of the various ways to dissect what knowledge is. This entails the possibility of knowledge being a set of truths; from which it follows that one cannot possibly give a single definition. The definition given must therefore satisfy certain desiderata , while being strong enough to demonstrate clarity without losing the reader. If we base our definition on every counter-example that disproves our original definition then it becomes ad hoc. This is the case for our current defini...
...f a triangle includes three sides, so the idea of God includes His existence. Since Descartes got to prove the God's existence, he holds that man can have confident in his clear and distinct idea and reason. Since God is all-perfect He cannot be a deceiver, if He does, it would undermine His nature. Therefore, the rational mind can now be certain about the clear and distinct truth.
The rational or a priori of knowledge- the base of this knowledge is provided by “natural light.” The empirical basis of knowledge is the content of a person conscious state of mind, beliefs, desires, and sensory states. “Thus the perception of the infinite is somehow prior in me to the perception of the finite, that is, my perception of God is before my perception of myself. For how would I understand that I doubt and that I desire, that is, that I lack something and that I am not wholly perfect, unless there was some idea in me of a perfect being, by comparison with which I might recognize my defects” (Descartes, 1641)? “I recognize that it would be impossible for me to exist with the kind of nature I have — that is, having within me the idea of God — was it not the case that God existed. By ‘God’ I mean the very being the idea of whom is within me, that is, the possessor of all the perfections which I cannot grasp, but can somehow reach in my thought, which is subject to no defects whatsoever. It is clear enough from this that he cannot be a deceiver since it is manifest by the natural light that all fraud and deception depend on some defect” (Med. 3, AT
1. In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas concluded that our knowledge originates in sense perception, and that the purpose of knowledge is to be the entire universe through natural being, or esse intentionale. Aquinas said that knowledge must be universal, unchanging, and necessary. Being is knowing, and this includes being the entire material universe by knowing the entire material universe. The purpose of knowledge also includes being God, or knowing God. Knowing God consists of philosophy as a cause, theology as revealed, and beatific vision as God, which can only occur after death – all of which is achievable only through the actions of God. Aquinas concludes that a person cannot achieve the purpose of knowledge alone, we
Descartes in his “Meditations on First Philosophy” is determined to wipe away all his conceived notions of truth, and to build his knowledge base from nothing, in order to have a more perfect and true knowledge. He writes of the origin of this course of action.
... by assuming that because he experienced the idea of perfection that God must exist. Nonetheless, Descartes was able to provide evidence, if not proof, that God exists and is responsible for the clear and correct aspects of human reasoning.
In this paper I will describe the foundationalist structure of Descartes’ arguments in his work Meditations on First Philosophy. Foundationalism is the view that there are some beliefs are epistemologically basic and can be known without knowing anything else is true (Loeb, Lecture 1-14). For example, philosophers such as Descartes would acknowledge that geometric truths, such as 2 + 2 = 4, are so fundamental that they don’t need to be proven through argumentation. Thus, these truths can provide the basic foundation for further arguments. In my paper, I will show that two foundational claims of Descartes are first, the existence of the mind, and second, the existence of God. From these claims Descartes derives many others, including the argument for material objects and souls. As I lay out Descartes’ case, I will examine the philosophical soundness and validity of his foundationalist account, as well as its merits and potential weaknesses. In the end, I will conclude that Descartes’ foundationalism, while alluring in its simplicity, does not survive deeper investigation.
...ll true knowledge is solely knowledge of the self, its existence, and relation to reality. René Descartes' approach to the theory of knowledge plays a prominent role in shaping the agenda of early modern philosophy. It continues to affect (some would say "infect") the way problems in epistemology are conceived today. Students of philosophy (in his own day, and in the history since) have found the distinctive features of his epistemology to be at once attractive and troubling; features such as the emphasis on method, the role of epistemic foundations, the conception of the doubtful as contrasting with the warranted, the skeptical arguments of the First Meditation, and the cogito ergo sum--to mention just a few that we shall consider. Depending on context, Descartes thinks that different standards of warrant are appropriate. The context for which he is most famous, and on which the present treatment will focus, is that of investigating First Philosophy. The first-ness of First Philosophy is (as Descartes conceives it) one of epistemic priority, referring to the matters one must "first" confront if one is to succeed in acquiring systematic and expansive knowledge.