The Folly of René Descartes’ Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy
In order to embark on his quest for truth, Descartes first devises his four rules which should serve as a solid foundation for all else that he comes to understand. Those rules are here evaluated in terms of what they fail to take into consideration. The rules are examined individually and consecutively, and are therefore also reiterated in order to be clear about them. Furthermore, the approach of using these rules is also analyzed to some degree. Ultimately, however, it is my conjecture that Descartes’ four rules are not as solid a foundation as he claims, but fail to consider key issues which are noted herein.
Descartes’ first rule deals with the notion of truth, and states it as follows.
The first [rule] was never to accept anything as true that I did not plainly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid hasty judgment and prejudice; and to include nothing more in my judgments than what presented itself to my mind so clearly and so distinctly that I had no occasion to call it in doubt. (11)
In essence, we are to accept only what is true. This brings up the question of how one can even know truth. For Descartes, the certain truth is “I think, therefore I am,” which is his first principle. However, even if this is a certain truth, how can we know anything else to be true? More importantly, however, the first rule states that nothing should be accepted that can be called into doubt, or to accept only that which is indubitable. Yet how can anything be indubitable, save perhaps Descartes’ first principle, and even there some may be able to find flaws? It seems doubtful whether anything can be proven beyond any reas...
... middle of paper ...
..., then there is no thing that is easier to know than another.
Descartes’ use of this approach is a false foundation as he does not see these complications. The underlying frailty of such rules is that it assumes absolute truths, without exceptions. I do not know of any truths that are absolute, and do not know of anyone who does. But more importantly, this approach would be much more effective if it was an inductive, and not a deductive, method. With an inductive method Descartes could not be refuted with a single instance, and he would not need to account for all contesting situations. It seems doubtful whether an absolutely deductive method could ever exist, based on the limits of human knowledge.
Works Cited
René Descartes. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. 4th edition. Trans. Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998.
Swift wants his readers to interpret his speaker as a kindhearted, sensible gentleman with a sincere concern for resolving problems for the Irish people. In the first eight paragraphs, the reader meets an affectionate man with precise insight into the predicament he will shortly address. By doing this, the speaker establishes himself up as someone who would not make an outrageous proposition. This makes his words even more effective.
During the 1720’s, the Irish people were suffering dearly, due to the oppression by Great Britain. There oppression came in the form of being displaced by wealthy English people who were buying up land in Ireland and then not living there. They would proceed to rent some of their land to the Irish people at extremely high rent, which eventually led to them not being able to pay neither their rent or provide their families with food or clothes. The reason behind Swift’s proposal is simple. He is an Irishman. He has a sense of patriotic duty to attempt to help his fellow Irish people. He wants them to know that it is possible to move forward form poverty and out from under the oppression of the British. He structures his essay through a basic form of presenting an idea and then backing it up with “facts” like the growth in weight of babies or expert accounts on the taste of children from a credible source. Something that Swift just assumes that the audience will take for granted. Additionally he assumes that the audience won’t simply put his article down, taking it as the ramblings of a mad man talking about eating babies like it’s a normal everyday thing.
Unfortunately, these ideas are very counter-cultural and some people just don’t want these ideas proclaimed. Some people are just confused between what society is selling and the true philosopher. Some people just try to make up a philosophy on their own and this is what happened with the writing of Rene Descartes in his work entitled, Discourse on Method. Descartes create a method that discredits God, truth and community because, he believes, all reasoning and truth is found in the individual. The biggest issue with Descartes method is the very first step, which is “to accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize to be so.” (Discourse, 14). This would lead anyone into the error, that if they encountered anything outside their experiences, these encounters would be deemed not true. As well as the
...ircle may have had a solid foundation and belief. However, I just gave you, with supporting evidence, my view of why the Cartesian circle is wrong and why I believe that Descartes was trying to make the point that God must exist in order for him or us to even have the clear and distinct perception to dwell on the idea of God, an idea that only God himself created. I hope this solves the issue of the Cartesian circle and hopefully strengthens Descartes argument of how the circle is false and he was maybe just misunderstood. My claim will stand that the Cartesian circle was just a big misunderstanding, and Descartes, by no means, interacted with the belief and structure of this falsified circle.
...e relatable to the popular audience. The two main characters – Bazarov and Nora – progress society to very different degrees. This is reflected by the absence of character development in Nikolai and Pavel as well as the radical changes in Nora’s persona. Nora’s power over Helmer contrasts how Russian society prevails over Bazarov. While Bazarov becomes sick and infirm, Nora asserts her independence over her familial duties. Ultimately, the degree of resolution of the two problems – female subordination and serfs’ indolence – varies between the two texts. While Arkady fails to address the serfs’ dissatisfaction, Nora emerges out of her doll’s house with an inquisitive mind. Therefore, Ivan Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons and Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House use the four aforementioned elements to contrast the relative successes and implications of the attempted revolutions.
4. Descartes, Rene, and Roger Ariew. Meditations, objections, and replies. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2006. Print.
three objections that I view to provide legitimate problems for Descartes and either an actual or possible
Rene Descartes decision to shatter the molds of traditional thinking is still talked about today. He is regarded as an influential abstract thinker; and some of his main ideas are still talked about by philosophers all over the world. While he wrote the "Meditations", he secluded himself from the outside world for a length of time, basically tore up his conventional thinking; and tried to come to some conclusion as to what was actually true and existing. In order to show that the sciences rest on firm foundations and that these foundations lay in the mind and not the senses, Descartes must begin by bringing into doubt all the beliefs that come to him by the senses. This is done in the first of six different steps that he named "Meditations" because of the state of mind he was in while he was contemplating all these different ideas. His six meditations are "One:Concerning those things that can be called into doubt", "Two:Concerning the Nature of the Human mind: that it is better known than the Body", "Three: Concerning God, that he exists", "Four: Concerning the True and the False", "Five: Concerning the Essence of Material things, and again concerning God, that he exists" and finally "Six: Concerning the Existence of Material things, and the real distinction between Mind and Body". Although all of these meditations are relevant and necessary to understand the complete work as a whole, the focus of this paper will be the first meditation.
...h some way to fix the blight of the country in a manner that was beneficial to its entire people. He wanted the Irish subjugation to end and the English to take pride in the land they ruled. Swift went on to become the Dean of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin, where he funded a charitable house for poor women and Saint Patrick’s Hospital. He did not, in fact, want to eat babies; he wanted to help put an end to the awful things happening in the country that he loved.
...ture the attention of the audience by means of “political pamphleteering which is very popular during his time” (SparkNotes Editors). The language and style of his argument is probably why it is still popular till this day. By using satire, Swift makes his point by ridiculing the English people, the Irish politicians, and the wealthy. He starts his proposal by using emotional appeal and as it progresses, he uses ethos to demonstrate credibility and competence. To show the logical side of the proposal, he uses facts and figures. By applying these rhetorical appeals, Swift evidently makes his argument more effectual.
Fashion has been around ever since ancient times, since the time of the Romans, it survived the world wars and is yet today a business with rapid changes. Fashion started off as an art form, a way for the riches to show their social status with unique and innovative designs that only they could afford. It was a way to separate the social classes of the society. In this paper I will include the creator of haute couture, and how the following designers developed couture, as well as having leading names in today’s ready-to-wear industry. The list is long, but I chose to focus on the three most important designers of the modern fashion industry.
They criticized the social injustices that was going on during the 18th century in Ireland by doing what they loved the most, writing. Swift and Goldsmith wrote their stories as a mockery to the arrogance, hypocrisy, and falsehood of the upper classes. Through their bold and amusing tales, we are entertained with the obvious message of injustice and corruption decorated in a satire. Through their love of literature, Swift and Goldsmith, tried to better their society by displaying their discontent through countless satires. For both Jonathan Swift and Oliver Goldsmith, their love of literature began at a young age; however, their poverty-stricken lives prevented them from pursuing their dreams. Nevertheless, these dreams manifested into reality, and soon Swift and Goldsmith took jobs writing for the Tory. Jonathan Swift and Oliver Goldsmith had similar ideas, and because of this, took on similar writing jobs. Their love of literature persuaded each to join a Literary Club. Throughout the years, these two poets underwent great trials; however, their passion for literature never
In both Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard and Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House the subversion of perception and the insubordination of supposedly inferior characters has massive implications on the overall message of the play. These mechanisms bring to light a multitude of questions about the correctness of social norms and the future of both Russian and Norwegian society. They are powerful reminders of ever-changing society and the nature of human relationships, and they leave the reader at once confused and motivated for change.
Can intelligence be measured? Does an IQ test actually measure a person’s intelligence? The answers all depend on who you ask.
Jonathan Swift growing up, born in Ireland suffered very much. Both his parents exited his life after his birth. Jonathans father Jonathan Swift Sr. died four months after his son’s birth. His mother Abigail Erick tried to care for the young sick Jonathan with his nurse. Eventually his mother gave in and sent Jonathan to England with his nurse to be cared for in a better manner. Jonathan was barely raised by a female figure once his mother and nurse were not by his side as he grew past infancy. When he came back to Ireland, Jonathan lived with his uncle who gave Jonathan the best education possible which he funded for Jonathan.