In Ludwig Wittgenstein's book “On Certainty”, he discusses his beliefs on Knowledge, doubt, skepticism, and certainty. One part in his book that caught my eye was a section in his book where he discusses doubt. Ludwig states “My life consists in my being to accept many things”(344). He believes that some things cant be doubted and must remain so for us to go on philosophically. Ludwig says “That is to say, the questions that we raise and our doubts depend on the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn”(341). Ludwig is saying here is that before we can even begin to doubt something we must first understand that some things can not be doubted or else the list would go on for ever. That there must be some things not doubted for logical flaws to be found. An example would be to say one is driving down a road and begins to ponder the likely threats that would occur. One must know things for certain such as the road will not suddenly melt before there vehicle or else they would get no where productive with the question they ask them selves. …show more content…
If I want the door to turn, the hinges must stay put”(343). Here Ludwig furthers his point that if we want to be able to continue learning and advancing through life we must accept some things as not being able to be doubted. He says that it is not that we must just except that we cant check every thing, but that some things must be as they are. Such as doubting if a catapult will fire. Most people will say the rock is to big or to heavy for the catapult to launch it. They accept for cretin that gravity will remain the same and wont randomly turn off when the catapult attempts to fire. They don’t doubt gravity because they must not if they are to get any where with the
Now in the case of Schulz, she talks about the famous philosopher Descartes. He brings up the argument that “error does not arise from believing something that isn’t true, but believing in insufficient evidence” (362). Descartes wanted to be an ideal thinker and take in every bit of evidence he possibly could before drawing a 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.
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’.
In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes narrates the search for certainty in order to recreate all knowledge. He begins with “radical doubt.” He asks a simple question “Is there any one thing of which we can be absolutely certain?” that provides the main question of his analysis. Proceeding forward, he states that the ground of his foundation is the self – evident knowledge of the “thinking thing,” which he himself is.
In the second meditation of Descartes, he continues his topic about doubt and certainty. And he doubts that nothing is certain and wanted to use the Archimedes’s methods – “Demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth.” (Descartes, p394) - to make something certain. And the starting point is to find at least one thing that he can assure is “certain and unshakeable” (Descartes, p354).
He says that it is harder for him to doubt something deliberate, and the idea that he can have opportunities that are up to him to decide that fate of an outcome. He goes on to say that we must be wiser with our principles and start adjusting our theories to our data and avoid tailoring our data to our theories.
William Lyon Phelps, an American educator, journalist, and professor, believed, “If you develop the absolute sense of certainty that powerful beliefs provide, then you can get yourself to accomplish virtually anything, including those things that other people are certain are impossible.” Phelps believed that certainty is the key to overcoming the impossible. He believed that absolute certainty and confidence in oneself will allow one to accomplish anything he or she put her mind to. It is common for underdogs in different competitions to side with Phelps because they are told that it is impossible for them to win. These competitors use the doubters claims as fuel to motivate themselves and become absolutely certain that they can and will overcome the impossible. On the other hand, Bertrand Russell stated, “I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt.” Russell, a British author, mathematician, and philosopher. believed that doubt will allow to people to adjust their opinions and envision what their decision may or may not lead to. He believed that nothing is ever truly certain; therefore, there would always be a period of doubt in the decision-making process. This view was extremely common in the minds of people in scientific or academic fields because they know that in the process of perfecting an idea includes multiple trials, errors, and periods of
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”.
Epistemology is purposed with discovering and studying what knowledge is and how we can classify what we know, how we know it, and provide some type of framework for how we arrived at this conclusion. In the journey to identify what knowledge is the certainty principle was one of the first concepts that I learned that explained how we, as humans, consider ourselves to know something. The certainty concept suggests that knowledge requires evidence that is sufficient to rule out the possibility of error. This concept is exemplified in cases like The Gettier problem in the instance that we suppose (S) someone to know (P) a particular proposition. As Gettier established the Justified True Belief as a conceptual formula for knowledge, certainty can be understood with the proper perspective and background. The certainty principle explains that knowledge requires evidence to be “sufficient” to rule out the possibility of error. This means that what we determine to be acknowledged as “knowledge” must present justification in order to be accepted believed as knowledge. This is important because Skepticism doubts the validation of knowledge and how we come to any such conclusion of justifying what we “know” indubitably as knowledge. This is the overarching problem with skepticism. Instead of having a solid stance on how to define knowledge, skeptics simply doubt that a reason or proposition offered is correct and suppose it to be false or flawed in some manner. See the examples below as identifiers of the skeptic way of life.
. . . 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)
Cartesian Skepticism, created by René Descartes, is the process of doubting ones’ beliefs of what they happen to consider as true in the hopes of uncovering the absolute truths in life. This methodology is used to distinguish between what is the truth and what is false, with anything that cannot be considered an absolute truth being considered a reasonable doubt. Anything which then becomes categorized as a reasonable doubt is perceived as false. As Descartes goes through this process, he then realizes that the one thing that can be considered an absolutely truth is his and every other individual’s existence. Along with the ideology of Cartesian skepticism, through the thinking process, we are capable of the ability to doubt that which is surrounding them. This ability to think logically and doubt is what leads us to the confirmation of our existence.
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.
In conclusion, the initiation in philosophy of methodological scepticism will constitute, after Descartes, becoming the obsessive theme of reflection of modern philosophy. Descartes’ mediations are the ones which expose the results of metaphysics based on principles. For the building of this philosophy those principles must be absolute certain. Descartes realises this and doubts all his previous knowledge, not to reach a sceptical conclusion but to find absolute certain elements beyond doubt, allowing him to find the foundation on which he can build the rest of his thinking.
Philosophical context: I shall use Descartes’ Meditations 1 and Blackburn 's “Think” to discuss the question and my initial answer. In Meditations 1, Descartes sets out to destroy all preconceived notions from his childhood and establish a new foundation for the sciences -- a lasting foundation and explores methods of doubt to his own senses and how to deal with them properly.
The reader, like modern man, must not give into “the arrogant presumption of certitude or the debilitating despair of skepticism,” but instead must “live in uncertainty, poised, by the conditions of our humanity and of the world in which we live, between certitude and skepticism, between presumption and despair “(Collins 36).