Saturday, October 4, 2014
When the Walls Come Tumbling Down
Descartes realizes that some of the beliefs he thought were true turned out to be false. In the pursuit of knowledge he seeks to tear down his previous beliefs and build them up again upon a firm foundation. In other words, he is engaged in a foundational project, searching for a class of beliefs that themselves are not in need of justification in order to justify his other beliefs. But is this quest a misguided one? Do such beliefs exist? If not, does that mean that knowledge is impossible? Or is there some other way to justify our beliefs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In his very first meditation, Descartes outlines the purpose of his meditations, explaining that, “I realized that once in my life I had to raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations if I wanted to establish anything firm and lasting in the sciences” (13). Wishing to rethink his life and his thoughts, Descartes hopes to establish foundations of unquestionable beliefs on which he can build further beliefs on. However, I believe that this is a fruitless task, because after reading Descartes’s ideas and conclusions I am not convinced that there is a set of beliefs that is universally true. In A Treatise of Human Nature, philosopher David Hume elaborates on this line of reasoning: “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception.” According to Hume, beliefs and ideas are completely dependent on the senses and other external forces, and therefore are not all derived from a shared foundation.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the lack of a shared foundation absolutely prevents people from obtaining knowledge. Although we do not develop our ideas from exactly the same source, the majority of people have the same five senses, and since all ideas are developed from some form of external influence we can reasonably conclude that there will be a vast number of similarities amongst people. Even though there is a wide variety of external influences, people always share their external influences with other people, so these groups of people will develop similarities too. The difficult part about examining this knowledge is how to measure its magnitude. I have already explained the concept that everyone develops knowledge, but I believe that the absence of strict foundations does make it impossible to determine who has the most knowledge and whose knowledge is the best.
Descartes realized that some beliefs that he perceived as true turned out to be false. Due to his situation, he decided to pursue knowledge by getting rid of all his previous beliefs, in order to search for a belief that does not need justification in order to justify his beliefs. In my opinion, Descartes makes some mistakes when deciding what makes up knowledge and how to determine whether or not he has knowledge
ReplyDeleteThe first problem is that Descartes decides to discard the senses, “I have noticed that the senses are sometimes deceptive; and it is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once” (14). My opinion is similar to David Hume, when he says that every idea that I have is based off the senses. To disregard the senses, is to disregard all of the knowledge that I am able to store. Descartes, further in the book, establishes that God helps him remember, therefore giving him knowledge. However, your memory is based off past experiences, which involve the senses. For example, I remember a math problem, because I am able to see or hear it. It does not just pop into my head, I have to use my senses to originally gather information that I can remember further on down the road.
The second problem is that he thinks that if he can prove one belief to be true, then all of his other beliefs will be true. This is a misguided quest from the beginning, because there are certain beliefs that could still be false. Say that I believe that talking pink unicorns are real, but also believe that I exist. If I can prove that I exist, does that mean that pink unicorns are real. No, this is a belief that I have in my mind that is false, but according to Descartes theory it must be true. Another problem with this theory is that there are certain aspects of knowledge that are separate from one thing that you can prove. So, if I can prove that I exist, does that prove that the quadratic theorem is true, or that a banana is yellow. These are different perceptions, by proving one perception that I have, does not mean that I can prove all perceptions that I have to be true.
I think that Descartes’ search for absolute, indubitable truths is an unnecessary and misguided quest since lesser truths suffice for humanity. Even though a “known” concept may not be true in the whole of existence, it is true in the world we perceive and we can prove that it is true in our world. Since we will only ever exist in this world, that concept is functionally true for us. Consider Descartes reason for constructing a new belief set based on fundamental truth. In the introduction to his grand project, Descartes decided that he must rebuild his doubtful beliefs from the ground up “if [he] wanted to establish anything firm and lasting in the sciences” (13). Here Descartes worries that our knowledge of science is flawed or incomplete because we cannot yet truly know anything. However, any proper scientific conclusion has been verified by experimentation so we know with certainty that it is true in our perceived world. Once again, Descartes’ quest is unnecessary since anything that is true in our universe, even if it becomes false in the greater scheme of things, can be utilized to our benefit. Descartes’ foundational truths may exist, but we may as well consider them nonexistent since we can never find them. Humans will only ever operate within the universe we perceive. However, since the foundational truths are the basis for all truth, they must transcend our universe in order to apply to everything. Thus, we can never reach them. If our universe is in fact all that exists, then Descartes’ quest is still misguided because we would already know what exists and what does not. Regardless, knowing the ultimate truth is pointless; we can still live happy and fulfilling lives with only an awareness of our immediate surroundings.
ReplyDeleteAt the start of "Meditations on First Philosophy", Descartes has a revelation regarding his knowledge, and realizes that many of the ideas that he once used as building blocks for everything else in his life were "false opinions". He decided to start over as a skeptic, knowing nothing, until he could find a set of foundational beliefs as a basis for all other knowledge. Can such a set of beliefs be found? To me, finding postulates of life seems like quite the task, and actually not feasible. To base life off of a few ideas seems impossible as these ideas would have to be so perfect to take into account every aspect of life. In addition to this, Descartes didn't seem too successful in having his ideas support him in further arguments, as lots of holes were found in them. Tommy Dell did an excellent job of including David Hume into this, Humes "A Treatise of Human Nature" claims that there is no self, while having a self is one of the main ideas that Descartes uses in his meditations. Hume justifies this by saying that it is perceptions are what make up someone, and when we take these away, there is nothing left. This further objects to Descartes foundational beliefs.
ReplyDeleteBecause such foundational beliefs don't exist, this still doesn't mean it's impossible to obtain knowledge. Although there is no "official set of beliefs" by which we can justify knowing things, we still can know things. Skepticism does not all of sudden become the main idea because such beliefs cannot be found. I know 1+1= 2, and I can still make observations. Now whether or not these observations are the “greatest” cannot be said, but I talk to others, and discuss my observation as well as their observations, and begin to form and shape stronger ideas. As a community, we develop an accepted set of knowledge, whether or not it is true. Ages ago, people agreed that the earth was flat, and that became knowledge, loosely speaking. Fortunately, humans are naturally curious and we worked to determine the truth about the earth. At any given moment, we will have false beliefs, but someone will always be working to correct these, and find the better form of knowledge. Does it really matter if things we believe are actually the truth? Sure, when people find out the truth it will be shocking, but there is no way we can prove it at this moment. What really matters is that this “knowledge” has an impact on people, and affects the way we live our lives. Whether or not it is “true” knowledge is less important, than what is accepted at this moment, and how we respond to it in our daily lives.
I think such beliefs do exist, but the meditations may have been more effective or successful had Descartes focused his attentions more instead of trying to prove the existence of everything. He also may have made better progress if he had not made such vague, sweeping assumptions about his understanding. In other words, he creates the general rule that everything he clearly and distinctly perceives is true based on one instance of self-reflection, which seems to be a flawed basis for understanding the rest of the world. To say that one can comprehend everything if one understands that they are a thinking thing ignores any distinction there might be between objective fact and self-reflection. It is one thing to be aware of one’s own self; it is another to be aware of the world around oneself.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the unwieldy scope of Descartes’ meditation, he might have benefitted by taking a page from Plato’s book. Plato chose to contemplate morality in The Republic, though he did stray to create an ideal situation in which morality could flourish. His tangents, however, seemed to be functional in terms of getting to the root of morality and its importance. Descartes’ explanations, on the other hand, dug him into a deeper hole with every pronouncement. Like his peers pointed out, he would argue in circles, using his conclusion to justify his premises, and it was easy to lose track of what his point was. Descartes’ intention was not as misguided as his execution was sloppy.
That being said, I think there are several kinds of foundational beliefs. The two umbrellas under which they can fall are beliefs about one’s self, and beliefs about the world. Descartes seemed to be searching for one small set that was the be all and end all. What he accomplished was establishing a very flimsy skeleton on which to base his ideas about the rest of existence. This starting point, with the addition of his observations of and interactions with the world, allowed him to create opinions. These opinions might be clearly and distinctly perceived by him, but might make absolutely no sense to another person. Therefore, if opinions of something can differ, it is possible that one of those opinions cannot be objective fact. For example, Descartes claims that he can prove the existence of God. What then, might an atheist say to this? Neither ideology has more or less reality than the other, because they are based on what the believer (or non-believer) has observed in his or her life. On the other hand, things like math and science can be tested and proved over and over again. Someone could argue until they’re blue in the face that a triangle has 15 sides and its interior angles have a sum of 7000 degrees, but all observable evidence would say they were wrong. Such is the difference between ideas of the self and ideas of the world. Descartes experiences and instance of clarity on which he can effortlessly base his opinions of himself and how he will interact with the world; however, the general rule that stems from that more effectively applies to the understanding of objective fact, which is separate from individual interpretation.
Despite what Descartes claims, all beliefs are in need of justification. Descartes’ foundational belief presented in the Cogito argument comes close, but it still does not escape the need for justification. In Mediation 2, Descartes writes, “It must finally be established that this pronouncement ‘I am, I exist’ is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind” (Descartes 18). This belief is essentially interpreted as “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes claims that the only thing someone can be sure of is the fact that they think. Yet it is possible that someone cannot even be sure of this simple fact. In his first meditation, Descartes claims that all beliefs are derived from the senses. He says the senses can be deceptive, therefore, we cannot know which beliefs are true and which beliefs are not true. As a result, we know nothing. Descartes attempts to disprove this idea of Skepticism and thinks he is able to, but he is incorrect. Descartes assumes that the mind and the body are two very different things, but they are inherently connected. Even things that seem to exist solely in the mind are defined by the senses. For example, take the idea of a memory. One cannot touch, taste, see, smell, or hear a memory. One can only remember a memory. However, a memory is defined by the senses. A memory always consists of someone remembering a touch, a taste, a sight, smell, a sound, or some combination of these five. Without consisting of some sense or a combination of senses, a memory does not exist. If even the most intangible beliefs that seem to exist solely in the mind are defined by the senses, and the senses can be deceptive, then nothing is certain. As far as thinking goes, a thought is also defined by the senses. If one thinks “I exist,” they are thinking “I can see, I can hear, I can smell, I can taste, and I can touch, so I must exist.” Obviously there are exceptions for people who are blind and deaf, but everyone has at least one of these senses. One cannot have a thought that is not defined by one of the senses. If the senses can be deceptive, than even thoughts such as “I exist” are not certain. Therefore, we can know nothing, and Descartes fails in eliminating skepticism.
ReplyDeleteIf Descartes continues to pursue truth in the same manner as the first few meditations, then he definitely needs the fundamental beliefs in order to prove any other beliefs. In this sense it is the same as mathematics, you cannot just say certain things are the way they are, you have to prove them using a small set (about 7) of definitions and assumptions. These have always worked for mathematics and there is no reason why they won’t work for philosophy as both are trying to understand the world at a fundamental level. This comparison brings up an interesting point; in math, the definitions are things like points and lines, we know what they are and use them to describe other things. They seem fundamental to math but it is reasonable to assume if we were to meet an alien race, their mathematics would probably look a lot different than ours in that they approach problems differently. In philosophy we would also have to create definitions from which to start, these definitions would be based on how we think. At first this seems like a problem, if we think wrong, then our definitions will lead us to the wrong answer; but again I think the analogy to math holds, even though the previously discussed alien math would look different than ours, it would still be describing the same thing, it would come to the same conclusions, in the same way, as long as our definitions are based off of the world as we understand it, our conclusions would reach the correct answer regardless of which starting definitions we choose. This is a valid comparison because philosophy is a way to answer questions about ourselves and about the world, by using information we know about the world to come to these answers, we could not possibly be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this a completely misguided quest and that there is no fair way to justify knowledge by it. Regardless of the thought put into the format for this quest, and regardless of whether or not knowledge can be justified in the first place, the way he goes about this quest would be unqualified to prove anything because it is completely contradicting.
ReplyDeleteAs Descartes starts from scratch and begins to filter through possible realms of his own knowledge, he believes that any areas that spark any of his own doubt should be deemed in-whole untrustworthy. As he presents doubt to things, he continues to tear away at what he once thought was his own knowledge. I believe that the logic used here, to develop this system of analyzing possible knowledge, is completely contradicting. The question I immediately ask is: How could one judge his own knowledge, himself? By doing this, he assumes that he is justified in any negative opinion he will have regarding his knowledge. But not only is he simply holding himself to this unjustified level of being allowed to judge, but he is forgetting that he is using what might be considered knowledge to do it. THIS ARGUMENT FALLS APART ON ITSELF:
1. Statement -> Descartes has no knowledge
2. This premise is confirmed by Descartes’ own judgments
3. Descartes trusts his opinions and judgments
4. Judgments and opinions are derived and supported by knowledge
Interpreted From: (Descartes, Meditation 1)
Descartes has a lot of work to do here as far as actually being able to convince anybody of anything. This argument, clearly, collapses on itself.
I believe that this quest is misguided because he has already been proven wrong. He realized that what he currently knew was false and instead of owning up to the fact that he was wrong and has this false knowledge, he goes further and tries to give proof that his false knowledge is actually the truth. It's like being proved wrong with about a general statement, and then going back trying to find facts and evidence to prove that this incorrect statement is in fact correct, it doesn't work. If this idea of proving what's already considered to be false knowledge true, you're simply taking a longer road that ends with this knowledge being false. So i believe that this belief of his that has been proven false doesn't exist because it's almost impossible to find something to be wrong, yet still pursue the idea so far to point of trying and forcing a way for it to be true. It doesn't make sense and isn't logical especially impossible.Now the ability to obtain knowledge is very possible you just have to gain it the correct way and then once you've gained knowledge, you must put it to use to prove that it is in fact correct. If not you can gain all this knowledge like Descartes, but it would be useless because it is incorrect. So the idea of knowledge and it's availability isn't impossible, just getting the correct knowledge is the difficult part.
ReplyDelete