Hello. I’ve been trying to analyze Descartes’ “First Meditation”. I cant come up with any counterclaims to his arguments. Please help me. I really need some help ASAP.
So Descartes is arguing that a particular view of how we
acquire knowledge is wrong. This view (sometimes called “Empiricism”)
is the view, that all that we know is based on sense-experience (the
testimony of our senses). According to Descartes, empiricism must be
wrong because we are justified in doubting whatever we believe based on
our senses. Why? Because we often make mistakes about such beliefs
based on the senses. We find out later that what we believed was wrong.
(Descartes gives several example of how our senses lead us into error)
But how can we know anything we are justified in doubting? We cannot.
So, since we can justifiably doubt whatever we think we know, when what
we think we know is based on sense-evidence, we cannot know what we
think we know when what we think we know is based on sense-evidence.
Descartes’ first meditation, his main objective is to present three
skeptical arguments to bring doubt upon what he considers his basic
beliefs. Descartes believes this to be an intricate part of his complete
epistemological argument.
Descartes begins by saying that he wants to abandon all notions that can
be called into doubt. He is intending to find other statements that can not
be doubted and which are true under any circumstances. He wants these
statements to serve as a basis for our knowledge, which therefore will
also be true for ever.
In his work, Descartes states that he doesn’t need to examine all the
variety of opinions but the foundations on which they are bases. He says
that if he will be able to prove that the foundations of these opinions are
wrong, therefore the opinions themselves will be wrong as well.
He also states that there are no particular signs which would determine
whether we are asleep or awake. That lead him to a conclusion that all
perceptions, senses, etc, shall be doubted because we can not determine
whether we are dreaming or not and therefore say what is real and what
isn’t.
Furthermore, all perceptions such as mathematics, etc. must also be
doubted, motivated by the possible existence of an evil God
influencing these in a way to differ from what is true and real.
Descartes’ final conclusion in the first meditation is that all perceptions
must be doubted and that in turn meant all knowledge must be doubted
due to rationalistic principle (Descartes assumed that knowledge may be
built up, step by step, from foundation which is true. This “trueâ€
foundation would guarantee the eternal nature of the knowledge. This
implies that there is some sort of absolute reality). He also notes
that even if he can’t know anything for sure, he can at least avoid false
knowledge. Descartes also makes the assumption that reason and logic,
which he uses, are valid and sufficient tools for attaining knowledge and
asserting truth or falsity. However, one shall not confuse common sense
with logic for this reason.
What would be a counterclaim to his statements? Please help!
One thing Ayn Rand mentioned was that, sure as Descartes says, a stick in a glass of water will appear bent, but this is no evidence against our senses, it just helps us to learn a property of light, namely refraction. The senses are the only avenue by which we can learn about the outside World, to negate them is to have all knowledge cease.
The way I see it is that you can’t trust your senses because they can be tricked. This I know because I’m a magician / mentalist. I get paid to break the laws of nature for an evening. But I believe that what Descartes was trying to get at was that your senses can be doubted. But the ability that you doubt can not. I don’t think that he truly meant to imply that our senses are b.s. and shouldn’t be trusted, but that to find truth you shouldn’t depend on your senses.
If you mean by “our senses are b.s.” that sometimes our senses mislead us, then you are right But, then, sometimes we add up figures wrongly. Does that mean that addition is b.s.?
Furthermore, how do we discover that our senses sometimes mislead us? Isn’t it our senses that inform of us that? And, how do we try to correct out senses?. Isn’t it by our senses? So, if we know that our senses mislead us by our senses, and if we correct our sense by our senses, how b.s. can our senses be?
Ha ha Jedi Master. You have proven your logic right. Let me take a quick stab at this.
Kennethamy wrote:
In severe thought of what was that you acutally wrote, I see that you are three moves from checkmate. I have no available peices to counter you but I will try.
It is true that we realize that our sense mislead us through other senses. But is the mind being considered a sense? Because if not, then it isn’t our senses alerting us that a sense is wrong, but rather the mind realizing that there is a “glich” in the matrix. So to say.
So the senses can be trusted, if they are being used by a strong objective mind to decipher what is valuable input from what isn’t. In the hands of a laymen, the senses are b.s.
all sensory input requires intense, critical thinking on behalf of the reciever. we can not take things just as they are. that’s bullshit.
i would agrue that it’s our reason. required to counter some sensory input might be more sensory input (if that’s what you are getting at) but to reach this conclusion depends on rational thought to occur. rationalism doesn’t think that there is only one way of knowing, just there there is one superior way.
as for the original question posed by samson, to counter act the 1st med, i think the best way to go about this is to attack the assumption, that truth is certainty. that’s the root of it all.
We have to judge in particular cases whether what we observe is correct or not. And, we do this against a backround of our other beliefs, which have, themselves, been acquired through our senses. For instance, if I observe a plane high up in the sky, it seems to be moving very slowly. But, I realize that, on the contrary, it is moving very fast, because I also believe that the speed at which objects move when observed at a distance is distorted. But, both the belief that the plane is moving slowly, and the corrected belief that it is moving very fast, were acquired through the senses. The mind’s role is to make inferences from what we have observed in the past to judge what we are observing now.
The problem isn’t that we think that truth is certainty. Truth is neither certain nor uncertain. A proposition is true whether we believe we are certain it is or not, since truth is what it is independently of our beliefs about it. But the confusion is between knowledge and certainty. We can know the truth without having to be infallible. In other words, without its being impossible that we are mistaken. We know that, for instance, Carson City is the capital of Nevada as long as our belief that Carson City is the capital of Nevada is true, and is adequately justified. Notice, I say, is true, not must be true. To put it slightly differently, I know a proposition is true only if (but not if) I am not mistaken about it, and not only if (but not if) it is impossible for me to be mistaken about it.
my point. we have to judge. whether this judgement be based on different empirical data or the words of a little green monster under my bed, we judge. we are not passive machines that simply compare different data to each other on command and bases behaviour/output on stored up data internally. errors would not occur if this is so. we must judge.
no, it’s descartes. did i say that we assume descartes’ position? did i mention that we are all now, living, breathing and existing mini-descartes? i didn’t think so. your arguement against the truth and certainty bit was essentially my suggestion in my previous post. darling, do try to be more careful.
Truth can no more be certainty than the number 7 can be green. Truth is certainty, like the number 7 is green, is what is called a 'category mistake" It is like saying that I am 130 pounds tall.
Certainty concerns knowledge not truth. Descartes’ interest was is whether we could have knowledge that was certain in the sense that it mistake would be impossible. If we could get that kind of certainty, then, he thought we would not only know but know that we know the truth. Certainty has to do with the reliability of our access to the truth, and not with the truth. When someone says that truth is (or is not) certain, that is just a confusing way of saying that he (or we) are (or are not) certain of the truth. But it is not truth that is certain or uncertain, it is people who are certain or uncertain of the truth.
There is one qualification to the above. Some philosophers do talk about the truth itself being certain. What they seem to mean is that they think that there are some truths which are not only true but are necessarily true. Examples of such necessary truths are the truths of mathematics which not only are true, but cannot be false. That means that their negations are contradictions. For instance, the truth that all sisters are females. The negation of that would be, some sisters are not females. But, the the substitution of synonyms for synonyms we would then get “Some female siblings are not females” and that would be a contradiction. So, perhaps, when you talk of truths being certain, you really mean that some truths are necessary truths.
Now, Descartes thought he has reached what was certain in the proposition, “I exist.” But he certainly did not think that “I exist” is a necessary truth, and that it was impossible for him not to exist. If he had he would have thought he was immortal, and he did not think that. What Descartes says about “I exist” is not that it is a “certain truth”. He knew that made no sense. Rather, what he says is that he is certain that “I exist” is true, And although I don’t think Decartes was right about that, it makes sense to believe that you are certain that a proposition is true. What makes no sense it to think that a truth is certain (or not certain)
kenneth…you’ve missed my entire point of my last couple of posts. are we taking lessons from the kurt weber school of discussion? not to sure what you are arguing against, because i think you would find that i’m in agreement with you. i suppose you like the look of your own words. is this lesson 1 from the kurt weber school?
I found this very informative, and I haven’t seen to much counter-examples to Descartes cogito, and I believe that is what you mean by “I exist”. You said that you don’t think Descartes was right, how so. I am very curious in hearing your thoughts.
Kurt Weber school of discussion?