Philosophers have long wondered about how to justify beliefs and hence establish knowledge. Do you start with a method or principle that you use to determine which beliefs are justified OR do you start with examples of justified belief to determine which method or principle confers justification? Descartes chooses the latter option. From his two example of knowledge (i.e. I know I exist and I know I am a thing that thinks) he establishes his rule about clear and distinct perceptions. Is this the right strategy or should he start with a rule or procedure? Is that the right strategy but a problematic implementation? Does he have enough examples of justified belief to establish the rule? Or is either strategy a dead end?
In “Meditations on First Philosophy” by René Descartes, the large conclusions surrounding metaphysical existence clearly follow his preconceived notions rather than being the source of robust philosophical inquiry. In the case of his “Cogito” argument, which proves that he does exist, Descartes’ existence is clearly certain among the premises of his argument. In a nutshell, Descartes' argument in his second meditation can be condensed as follows: As he demonstrates the ability to doubt everything, this very act of doubt signifies the existence of a thinking entity engaged in doubt, consequently affirming the existence of Descartes himself. In other words, he knows that he exists before he actually proves that he exists, and thus his reasoning is mostly dependent on the truthfulness of his conclusion. But that does not render his process incorrect. Regardless of the circularity or validity of his argument, Descartes’ process of initially formulation a belief and then proving corroborative evidence remains a legitimate methodology. Across many disciplines—including mathematics, science, and philosophy—academics should start with examples of justified belief to determine the methods that confer justification. Nonetheless, it is important to abandon a belief in the case that neither evidence nor logic can support it.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Pythagoras was inspired to devise his famous Pythagorean theorem after noticing visual patterns in a triangle, rather than analyzing the numeric properties of triangles themselves. Legend has it that Pythagoras found himself inside a sacred temple, where his gaze fell upon a right etched on the temple’s ceiling. He posed the triangle’s two shorter sides measured three cubits and four cubits, while the third and longest side measured six cubits. From this, he was able to form conclusions about the relationship between triangles and squares, and with some analytic geometry, Pythagoras robustly proved that the sum of the squares of a triangle’s two shorter sides is equal to the square of its longest side. Had Pythagoras not first posited this fact, it is unlikely that he would have had the knowledge to prove it. It is implausible that Pythagoras would have been experimenting with the geometric properties of triangles and just happened to manipulate them in a particular way to accidentally prove his theorem. In theoretical mathematics, one of the best strategies for proving a theorem is to assume its validity and work from there. The same approach can be applied to philosophical theorems. Starting with a preconceived belief, rather than a blank slate, can be a productive approach.
In a theological context, this method of examination is also considered by many to be valid. The scriptures and stories found in religious text were undoubtedly concieved after the ideas of a supreme being were thought of. Archeologists estimate that homo sapiens began to believe in some sort of god during the Upper Paleolithic period. It was not until thousands of years later when humans began to write things down and devise semi-concrete stories about the origins of gods and their actions. Yet, few religous scholars refute the validity and usefulness of the stories created by religions across the world, despite the fact that the idea of a supreme being came long before that.
Ultimately, the use of preconceived notions as a starting point for intellectual exploration is not only valid but often leads to fruitful outcomes in philosophy, mathematics, and religion. These beliefs provide a foundation from which scholars and thinkers can embark on their quests for knowledge and understanding.
Descartes uses examples to establish a primary principle: I doubt; therefore, I exist. Descartes then sets this method of reasoning (examples to principles) as the basis of many of his future arguments and is correct regarding this method. A principle can only exist because it bases itself on pre-existing examples; a truly original is practically impossible to form because all thoughts regard the world around us. We cannot create concepts we do not know; similarly, we cannot form principles on non-existent grounds for two reasons: we have no evidence to prove our argument and a trigger does not exist to make us think about such principles. Examples in the world have existed for much longer than a principle created by a thinking being has.
ReplyDeleteA primary example of this is problem-solving. The reason military technology exists today is to solve the issue of conquest and defense; the reason cars exist today is to solve the issue of inconvenient transportation; the reason doctors and a medical discipline exist today is because of the looming issue of self-health. Tanks and nuclear explosives would have never been conceived if every nation was on good terms with one another; the medical field would have never been conceived if every being had perfect health.
In the same way, a principle can only exist if a problem needs to be solved or a pattern is identified. To even begin to conceive a principle, a pattern must be identified to infer a possible rule. For example, if I were to have made a specific dish and got food poisoning right after (true story; I have food poisoning as I write this blog because of a meal I made), I can deduce that an ingredient in the dish gave me that food poisoning. Then, I can start trying different dishes with a constant ingredient in each and determine whether or not I get food poisoning. If I do, that means that I am sensitive to that ingredient; if I do not, then that means I am sensitive to a different ingredient. This method of understanding is so powerful that it forms the basis of scientific research today as the Scientific Method, one of the fundamental methods of research and understanding concepts. Even the Scientific Method itself was tested with examples before it was established as a law for scientific research.
This next section will briefly discuss circularity and highlight whether or not Descartes’ cogito argument is sound as it is, or if it needs more evidence. The argument can be considered correct if the circularity is broken and the argument is infallible.
Firstly, it is worth highlighting that the cogito is not a circular argument because many objects in the universe do not have souls, yet they do exist (rocks, black holes, metals). Therefore, Descartes’ application of the method here is valid; a thought proves the existence of a source, but a source does not always imply that it thinks. The circularity is broken.
To address the second point, Descartes has proved his argument with an infallible and already-established idea that all thoughts must come from an existing thinking being. Society demonstrates this: art must come from a thinking artist; technology must come from a thinking engineer; music must come from a thinking musician, etc. These three are primary examples of expressions of ideas and can be used to prove that all ideas must come from existing and thinking beings. Thus, because Descartes employs this idea in his cogito argument, he does not need to find any further evidence because it is neither circular nor fallible.
In Descartes' quest for a foundation for knowledge, he faced a crucial question: whether to start with a method or principle that you use to determine which beliefs are justified OR do you start with examples of justified belief to determine which method or principle confers justification? Descartes chooses the latter option. From his two examples of knowledge (i.e., 'I think, therefore I am' and 'I am a thinking thing'), he establishes his rule about clear and distinct perceptions. Imagine Descartes as a daring explorer navigating uncharted intellectual territories, discovering foundational truths that would serve as beacons in the stormy sea of doubt. This strategy indeed offers a robust foundation for knowledge, firmly anchored in undeniable certainties.
ReplyDeleteDescartes' choice to commence with examples of justified belief is a unique and intriguing approach. By beginning with the certainty of his existence ("Cogito, ergo sum"), he establishes a foundational point upon which to build his epistemological framework. This approach has the advantage of grounding his philosophy in a firm, undeniable foundation. From this indubitable belief, he affirms the existence of a thinking self, creating a second example of justified belief.
His rule, based on clear and distinct perceptions, emerges from these examples. Clear and distinct perceptions are those that the mind apprehends so vividly and distinctly that they cannot be doubted. Descartes' strategy here is to build a methodology based on the certainty of clear and distinct perceptions as a means to determine justified beliefs. This unconventional approach aligns with his commitment to radical doubt and the search for indubitable knowledge.
However, it is essential to scrutinize whether Descartes' strategy is the right one or if it has problematic aspects. Some philosophers argue that Descartes' limited examples might not capture the full spectrum of human knowledge, potentially limiting the applicability of his rule. Nevertheless, exploring these counterarguments adds depth to our evaluation of Descartes' approach.
Additionally, some argue that Descartes' strategy may be overly demanding. Requiring clear and distinct perceptions as the sole criterion for justified belief can lead to skepticism, as many beliefs do not meet this high standard. This strict criterion might be considered an impractical or unattainable requirement for everyday knowledge claims.
Descartes' choice to start with examples of justified belief and derive a rule based on clear and distinct perceptions is a distinctive and thought-provoking strategy. While it provides a strong foundation for his philosophy, it is not without its challenges and critiques. Whether it is the right strategy or a problematic implementation depends on one's perspective. Descartes' limited number of examples and the strictness of his criterion may raise valid concerns. Nevertheless, his approach opens up a rich and ongoing dialogue in epistemology, inviting philosophers to explore alternative methods and principles for justifying beliefs and establishing knowledge. Descartes' strategy remains a cornerstone of modern epistemology that continues to shape discussions on the nature of knowledge and belief justification.
Descartes' approach to beginning with examples of justified belief, such as "I think, therefore I am," offers an infallible foundation upon clear and distinct perceptions. I consider the argument both logically sound and sufficient in examples of justified beliefs to substantiate his rule, although it is not without limitations.
ReplyDelete"I think, therefore I am" is an excellent example of how this approach works, as it represents an undeniable proposition because the very act of doubt or thought itself demonstrates the existence of the thinking subject.
Consider the following illustration: Imagine someone doubting the existence of the thinking self. In the very process of doubting, they are engaging in thought. This internal contradiction exposes the undeniable nature of the thinking self, thus demonstrating the infallibility of the proposition in the context of foundational knowledge. In establishing this solid ground, Descartes creates a starting point from which he can build a system of knowledge and a criterion for evaluating other beliefs based on the principle of clear and distinct perceptions.
It sets the stage for exploring the reliability of clear and distinct perceptions as a guideline for distinguishing justified beliefs from doubtful ones.
However, there is a limiting nature allocated to the argument. Such limitation becomes evident when we consider the diversity of human knowledge and the complexity of the real world. For instance, scientific knowledge often involves probabilistic reasoning, where certainty is elusive. In evaluating ethics and morality, there is seldom a unanimous consensus on what is clear and distinct. Practical knowledge, such as how to ride a bike or cook a meal, relies on experiential learning and may not conform to Descartes' standard of indubitability.
Nevertheless, while it is true that there are limitations to his method, these impediments do not render his approach ineffective. Firstly, Descartes, by starting with indubitable propositions like "I think, therefore I am," ensures that the foundation of his philosophical framework is secure. This allows him to build a rational structure of knowledge upon an unassailable base, which is vital in the context of philosophy, where absolute certainty is often a critical requirement.
While it is true that not all knowledge claims align with the standard of clear and distinct perceptions, the cogito and other claims provide a criterion for distinguishing beliefs that are beyond reasonable doubt from those that are more uncertain. In the realm of practical knowledge, like riding a bicycle or cooking a meal, the method may not be directly applicable, however, for fields that rely on deductive reasoning and foundational principles, such as philosophy, Descartes' approach remains highly effective.
To concur, Descartes' approach, though limited in its applicability to certain types of knowledge, is a robust and compelling method for establishing foundational truths and guiding philosophical inquiries. Its emphasis on infallibility sets a high standard for certainty in specific domains, ensuring a solid and rigorous foundation for further knowledge and exploration.
Descartes establishes the principles of his thought because of his thought that we can know nothing. When he talks about our senses and how they deceive us in things like dreams, it is hard for us to distinguish reality, therefore making our senses dubious, and proving we know nothing. When Descartes forms his rules about clear and distinct perceptions, he starts with the undoubted fact that he is a thing that thinks and exists and then formulates his argument. While Descartes's argument has some strength to it, I lean towards the side of starting with a method or principle to justify beliefs
ReplyDeleteDescartes was definitely onto something when he pointed out that many beliefs should be informed on beliefs that we hold true and know for a fact are true. When I do my math assignments I am predicating my beliefs off of justified beliefs that are held true by society. Basic arithmetic all the way to different types of calculus are all the bases of my beliefs that allow me to inform potential new beliefs and prove something true. Everything that we assume as justified or seek to justify is based of verified beliefs we hold true. In a perfect world this is how we logically approach new ideas of knowledge and affirm hypotheses. In a world with perfect cognitive recognition Descartes is absolutely immaculate in his rendition of using justified believe to affirm principles.
What then happens when we don’t have enough justified beliefs to affirm a principle? How do we teach young children who don’t have many justified beliefs? How do we learn and explore about new concepts? These questions present the problem with Descartes logic. What Descartes hits at is the principles of knowledge. Knowledge runs the world, and the tried and true sayibg of brains over brawn’s has always been proven throughout history. We need knowledge to power the world, and everything as we know it. One of the key concepts of knowledge in general, however, is the continued teaching and learning of concepts.
For example, if Descartes were to teach a kindergarten class, how would he ensure that these children are able to justify their beliefs. It might sound silly, but it would be a real problem. You can not base justification on always true justifies beliefs. Rather you need a plan of attack. This is how our school system works too. We start with principles of brainstorming and other steps to lead to eventual justification. We need to establish methods and principles for when we get lost, are testing something new, or are exploring something new. There will always come a time when we don’t know what’s going on and we can’t rely on beliefs we have already justified. Without a process and a reliance on principle we will fall astray on the path to learn and gain knowledge about more.
In Meditations, Descartes methodically doubts his beliefs, initially thinking that all of his beliefs are false and that he doesn’t have any knowledge. But then, he realizes: he is thinking, and because he is thinking, he exists. He justifies foundationalism by starting with individual examples of things he can prove. This contrasts with someone like Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, who boldly states claims before he tries to justify them. In this instance, Descartes’ collection of examples is successful in justifying the Cogito.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are some drawbacks to this way of obtaining knowledge. First, it can cause philosophy to lack direction. Without an overarching idea, proving one belief might not lead to a useful conclusion. Descartes somewhat falls into this, as while he successfully proves that knowledge of the self is real, he accomplishes little else. Possibly, starting with clearer beliefs about the world may have resulted in a broader conclusion with more room for critique and interpretation. Second, bias is unavoidable. Philosophy cannot be separated from the society it is written in, which often influences the beliefs people choose to justify and the conclusions they draw. For example, if Descartes wasn’t writing in a monotheistic society, he might not have chosen to justify a belief in a single perfect God. But overall, Descartes’ method is often useful as a starting point in a school of thought and is a good way of eliminating as much bias as possible.
Lastly, combining the two methods is the best way of exploring as much knowledge as possible. For example, using another established theory to analyze Descartes’ work. In this way, philosophy can be as nuanced and developed as possible.
I believe that Descartes' method of justifying clear and distinct senses through his justified beliefs is the only option that leads to any distinct conclusions. An attempt at justifying beliefs through known methods or principles is without merit as this method relies on clear and distinct senses to even begin. As an oversimplified argument, we know that our senses often deceive us, we also thus know that they cannot be trusted. Since our senses are the foundations of our knowledge, therefore we can have no knowledge of the world around us, only of the thinking being which we call ourselves. As this line of argument would have it, it is impossible to create true beliefs based on known methods or principles as you can never know any real methods or principles of what surrounds you. Thus, Descartes begins on the right strategy of justification. Since we know that, I am a thinking being, and that I exist, these are the only 100% true conclusions we can make at this time. Descartes then attempts to justify his senses through the idea that a god would not deceive him and thus he can not be deceived. This is incorrect as we cannot prove the existence of god and thus cannot prove that our senses are clear, distinct, and without deception. Thus, while Descartes has the correct strategy, he completely misses when it comes to implementation. Descartes, in his attempt to prove god, basically uses probability and quite a bit of assumption to justify god’s existence. However, neither of these things will ever yield enough certainty to ensure God's existence, or the correctness of senses of which Descartes builds his foundation of knowledge upon. Unfortunately, both methods of thought yield dead ends as shown previously. I believe that for there to be knowledge of anything but yourself, there must be a justification through something other than senses, as every line of argument, at one point or another, attempts and fails to ensure their non-deception.
ReplyDelete