Wednesday, October 5, 2016
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)
Descartes’ quest to find a set of foundational beliefs is certainly misguided. His major foundational belief, which is that god exists, is based on circular argumentation. The one foundational belief he does prove is that he knows he exists. In order to be skeptical of your surroundings, there must to a self that doubts. Beyond that, he is unable to justify any other foundational beliefs. Due to this, true knowledge is impossible. There is something to be said for Coherentism, though. Coherentism argues that any belief is justified if it belongs to a coherent set of beliefs. An example of Coherentism is this: I believe that tomorrow is Thursday. I am justified in believing this because I believe that today is Wednesday and I also believe that Wednesday is followed by Thursday. All three beliefs are in accordance, and therefore fit in the web of Coherentism. However, to hardcore skeptics, this argument shouldn’t be convincing. Coherentism doesn’t deal with Descartes’ dreaming argument described in meditation one. Are the experiences we have in dreams not ‘coherent’? If I dream that I’m sitting in a bedside chair next to a fire, it is possible to make a Coherentist argument that the dream is reality. The belief that the dream is reality is justified because the chair is visible to me, I can feel the chair, I can see the fire, and I can feel the heat that the fire is giving off. In other words, Coherentism doesn’t deal with the fact that our senses are unreliable and sometimes deceive us, and Coherentism still applies in the Matrix. Having said all this, and knowing how strong of an argument skepticism is, I personally don’t think any time should be wasted trying to combat skepticism, and it doesn’t bother me that I can’t have true knowledge. Yes, all of our surroundings could be an elaborate setup by an evil genius, but we must live life according to what our senses tell us because we have no choice. It is pointless to argue about whether or not we are being deceived, because if I’m a brain in a vat, what am I going to do about it?
ReplyDeleteLine 4 typo: meant to type "be" instead of "to"
DeleteWhen put under intellectual scrutiny, Descartes quest to find foundational beliefs is only partially successful. However, even though his argument that God exists is based on circular reasoning, his argument that you have a mind is extremely sound and powerful enough to justify many of our beliefs. The fact that one has a mind, despite David Hume’s objections, is in fact a sound argument. Mr. Hume’s argument is that the mind is really just a collection of perceptions and experiences, like a small piece of the universe. Because of this, then we actually don’t even have our own minds. However, this argument is not convincing, because if the mind is just a collection of perceptions, then there still must be an entity within our bodies to perceive and retain the information given to us by the universe. Descartes’ argument that we have a mind is not only valid, but an essential premise for many other beliefs. Like what we were talking about in class today, beliefs such as sound doesn’t exist if nobody hears it, or whether or not color exists depend on the fact that we have a mind and can perceive the world around us. Many people would bring up that fact that there is a possibility that we are dreaming, or an evil omnipotent being is just messing with us and nothing as we know it is real. If this were the case, then everything we perceive isn’t true just having a mind isn’t enough to find truth, right? I would say that this argument still doesn’t devalue the importance of having a mind. Even if we are living in a matrix, to find out that we are not living in reality takes a mind. In other words, the only way we can ever find truth is to use your mind and perceive what is true and what doesn’t follow our perceived reality. An example I think works really well here is the movie “the Truman Show.” In this film, a man (named Truman) was born in a fake, TV world. His life is documented on reality T.V., but he doesn’t know that. Everything he sees or experiences he thinks is reality. His “reality” is not true reality. The way he figures out that he doesn’t live in reality is he sees his father (who supposedly died when he was 7) as an adult. By using his mind, he was able to perceive something that didn’t make logical sense. If we are living in a matrix, while what we perceive may not be reality, our mind is the only chance we have at finding truth. Descartes argument that we have a mind is essential- it doesn’t depend on other beliefs, and is vital for many of our current beliefs and is the only way we can ever find truth.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe only claim Descartes is able to maintain throughout his dialogue is the circular argument that god exists. He started this journey by ridding himself of all beliefs that showed doubt and were false. Descartes does this by dismissing his senses after realizing that the sensation of dreaming is not clearly defined. After creating a stable ground, he affirms his own existence, “[During] these last few days I was wondering whether anything in the world exists, and I noticed that, from the very fact that I was making this examination, it obviously followed that I exist” (58). The “Cogito”, which is Descartes argument for existence, only claims that the person who comes to the realization exists, not others around him. He eventually refers to his argument known as the Cartesian Circle. Cartesian Circle shows that one can be certain of some things, such as one’s own existence, because a “non-deceiving” exists. Despite this conclusion, one needs a “non-deceiving God” to validate the certainty. Descartes finishes off by trying to prove the existence of God, based on the idea God, in hopes of creating a more concrete conclusion than the Cartesian Circle offers. This is known as his Ontological Argument.
ReplyDeleteThe Ontological Argument is a foundation project where Descartes does not need justification to back up his initial beliefs. If Descartes were to fail at this attempt of justification, is there another way to solidify certain beliefs he holds? Coherentism uses the idea of a circle, yet is a separate idea from the Cartesian Circle. The circle of beliefs has to work in a big enough circle so that all of the separate beliefs can intertwine, becoming a justified system. Descartes mulls over his ideas about God, “For what, in and of itself, is more manifest than that a supreme being exists, that is, that God, to whose essence alone existence belongs, exists” (69)? After coming to the conclusion, he is able to move forward because, “[The] certitude about other things is so dependent on this, that without it nothing can ever be perfectly known” (69). Now that he is certain God exists, he can continue his pursuit of knowledge.
Descartes’ quest is a misguided one because all of his different arguments for his claims seem to be excuses. If Descartes becomes unaware of an unstable point, he quickly dismisses the argument he was using and moves on to the next, hoping to come to a satisfying conclusion. This does not mean that knowledge is not possible to obtain. There are other justifications, such as Descartes’ Ontological Argument, although it appears as the add on to his Cartesian Circle never ending cycle. It is not a question of whether knowledge exists or if it is possible. Rather, it is all about finding the argument that can lead us to that knowledge. Just because it has not been found yet, does not mean knowledge does not exist.
Edit: Last paragraph, fifth line, meant Coherentism instead of Ontological Argument: There are other justifications, such as Descartes’ Coherentism claim, that simply appear to add on to the Cartesian Circle's never ending cycle.
DeleteWhen put under intellectual scrutiny, Descartes quest to find foundational beliefs is only partially successful. However, even though his argument that God exists is based on circular reasoning, his argument that you have a mind is extremely sound and powerful enough to justify many of our beliefs. The fact that one has a mind, despite David Hume’s objections, is in fact a sound argument. Mr. Hume’s argument is that the mind is really just a collection of perceptions and experiences, like a small piece of the universe. Because of this, then we actually don’t even have our own minds. However, this argument is not convincing, because if the mind is just a collection of perceptions, then there still must be an entity within our bodies to perceive and retain the information given to us by the universe. Descartes’ argument that we have a mind is not only valid, but an essential premise for many other beliefs. Like what we were talking about in class today, beliefs such as sound doesn’t exist if nobody hears it, or whether or not color exists depend on the fact that we have a mind and can perceive the world around us. Many people would bring up that fact that there is a possibility that we are dreaming, or an evil omnipotent being is just messing with us and nothing as we know it is real. If this were the case, then everything we perceive isn’t true just having a mind isn’t enough to find truth, right? I would say that this argument still doesn’t devalue the importance of having a mind. Even if we are living in a matrix, to find out that we are not living in reality takes a mind. In other words, the only way we can ever find truth is to use your mind and perceive what is true and what doesn’t follow our perceived reality. An example I think works really well here is the movie “the Truman Show.” In this film, a man (named Truman) was born in a fake, TV world. His life is documented on reality T.V., but he doesn’t know that. Everything he sees or experiences he thinks is reality. His “reality” is not true reality. The way he figures out that he doesn’t live in reality is he sees his father (who supposedly died when he was 7) as an adult. By using his mind, he was able to perceive something that didn’t make logical sense. If we are living in a matrix, while what we perceive may not be reality, our mind is the only chance we have at finding truth. Descartes argument that we have a mind is essential- it doesn’t depend on other beliefs, and is vital for many of our current beliefs and is the only way we can ever find truth.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, in Descartes’ attempt to disprove skepticism and to build a foundation of beliefs, he HAS convinced me that some knowledge is attainable, but ALSO convinced me that a foundational project is indeed a misguided one. The two important instances of knowledge that Descartes discovers are that he exists and that he is a thinking thing. The arguments for these truths are well-reasoned and powerful. His argument for the first instance assumes that he does not exist, but then shows us that because he does believe in his existence, it obviously CONTRADICTS the belief that he does not, and makes the initial assumption of non-existence false. In short, as long as he believes he exists, he does exist (cogito ergo sum - I think, therefor I am). In regards to the second instance, Descartes says, “What about thinking? Here I make my discovery: thought exists; it alone cannot be separated from me…at this time I admit nothing that is not necessarily true. I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing” (19). Thus, as he contemplates through his mediations, if nothing else, he is certain that at least he IS thinking. With the discovery of these pieces of knowledge, he CAN certainly check off his “anti-skepticism” goal. However, the ability to derive any other claims of knowledge proves to be futile, as his attempt to extrapolate a rule of knowledge from these two instances of knowledge fails miserably.
ReplyDeleteKnowing that he exists and that he is a thinking thing, Descartes attempts to conclude that everything he clearly and distinctly perceives to be true is true. HOWEVER, he then considers that an “evil genius” could actually be making his perceptions false. To account for this deceiving being, he proves a benevolent God’s existence, because if one exists, his clear and distinct perceptions must then be true! The problem is, in order to prove God’s existence, his clear and distinct perceptions must be true, and for his clear and distinct perceptions to be true, God must exist. Thus, the conclusions he lands on result from faulty circular reasoning, famously known as the Cartesian Circle. Since the conclusions result from circular reasoning, they cannot be considered true knowledge (an idea further explained in my other blog response to “A God Chasing its Tail?”) This whole conundrum and the Cartesian Circle clearly display that although Descartes was able to discover that some instances of knowledge exist, a foundational project is misguided, as it seems to be impossible to derive any further true knowledge from them.
While foundationalism does not seem to work, there are other forms of justification, such as coherentism. Unlike with foundationalism, coherentism does not have any core of “privileged” beliefs that all other beliefs are derived from, but rather a web of beliefs that work well together. However, the faults of this form of justification are quite obvious. For example, a religion is made of a set of coherent beliefs and may function beautifully within itself; however, there are several religions whose beliefs contradict each other. What do we do in this instance? Which set of beliefs it “true” and which web contains the real knowledge?
It seems to me, at least based on the forms of justification that I have been exposed to and what I have described and explored above, there is no sufficient way to justify beliefs. I am convinced that some knowledge is attainable (such as my own existence and the fact that I am a thinking thing), and am therefore not a skeptic, I but remain uncertain that there truly is a way to build a SET of beliefs that are all indubitably true and justifiable.
- Seysha
Descartes’s foundational project is indeed misguided, primarily due to his act of ignoring each belief’s individual legitimacy. In other words, just because a set of ideas supports one main idea, that doesn’t necessarily guarantee their validity. For instance, since each belief itself is free from justification, one could easily make one or multiple inaccurate beliefs thus spoiling the entire class of beliefs’ truthfulness. Also, more importantly - unfortunately for Descartes, the ‘certain’ (objectively truthful) beliefs that he is searching for do not exist. Yet, there is one interesting idea that Descartes mentions in Meditation II, stating “I at least know for certain that nothing is certain” (Descartes 24). While this is an intelligent attempt towards figuring out what is certain and uncertain, this idea falls short as he later believes that there are certain beliefs (such as the idea that he must exist for instance). Therefore, one can still say that it is not certain that nothing is certain, since it is just as possible that nothing is certain as it is uncertain. Additionally, even if Descartes has a point, these beliefs would be nonetheless extremely scarce. A ‘foundationalist’ such as Descartes might respond to this comment by asking “what better way is there for attempting to justify knowledge (which is of course difficult since nothing is certain)?” Another approach would be coherentism, which is similar to foundationalism (by using a classes of beliefs) but different in that there are multiple classes of beliefs that can conflict with each other (instead of just one single foundation), which is just as troublesome. In conclusion, people like Descartes will unfortunately have to live on without knowing if they know anything or if they don’t know anything.
ReplyDeleteDespite what others think, Descartes’ quest for foundational beliefs is not a misguided one. I believe that his foundational project provides the means to begin a much broader quest about what is true and what is not. People are often too quick to judge an argument and not take the time to see the merits behind it. Even though he perilously tares down all beliefs about reality and even claims that “I at least know for certain that nothing is certain” (Descartes 24), Descartes saves himself in Meditation II, where he finds the utmost foundational truth: that “I” exist. He proves this through thinking, explaining that “Here I make my discovery: thought exists; it alone cannot be separated from me…at this time I admit nothing that is not necessarily true. I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing” (19). In order to understand what Descartes is saying, let me put this in terms about me.
ReplyDeleteLet us say that all that I have experienced in my life does not exist. My parents, friends and family are not real and all my senses are false. Thus, the most sensible next question is that if everything around me does not exist is nothing, do I exist? However, I just proved that I did. The act of thinking is in itself something and because something is not nothing it must be real. So since I create and am defined by my thoughts, which we proved are something, then I must be something because something cannot be nothing or born by nothing. This proves that I exist.
Now to address all of the haters of Descartes that claim this foundational truth is misguided and cannot be used to prove anything else. You are wrong. Instead of leaving himself in a world of doubt, Descartes offers the starting point in which we can start to prove beliefs to be true or not. With his margin of uncertainty in regards to beliefs, Descartes shows that beliefs that are taken as facts can be disproven and improved upon without hassle. This is due to the fact that he says that our senses are not always perfectly accurate and that we can make mistakes. In all, Descartes does not have all the answers, but his proof that “I” exist is a perfectly guided starting point in the quest for the truth.
In his Meditations, Descartes sets out to create a foundational view of knowledge, building up all of knowledge with a select group of few primary beliefs. But is this quest worthwhile? Can all beliefs be justified with just a few ideas to start with? As valiant as his attempt at proving these theories to be true may be, it falls short in many ways. He does not create a sturdy enough foundation to build upon, nor does he use his already weak foundation in a valid way. His arguments jump from place to place, are often quite circular, and often do not follow logically from one another. Still, his effort sets us down the path to justify knowledge in other ways. In class, we discussed some other primary epistemological systems. The first of these is coherentism, in which all beliefs in a system must ‘cohere’ with one another, and are justified by the sheer fact that they fit in with each other. While this system may seem to have a few problems, and does not seem to require any true forms of justification, it does have its merits. Where Descartes theories fall short, requiring circular reasoning to prove many of his points, coherentism can step in and fix the problems. For example, while Descartes foundationalist ideals require him to prove the existence of G-d and reality, with coherentism in mind, we can just let G-d and reality exist, and go on from there, as long as there are no contradictions between beliefs in the system. Once we have assumed these beliefs, we can make claims to knowledge, which would fit in the system given that they are coherent with the beliefs we already have. Overall, coherentism provides a much simpler and more promising epistemic solution than foundationalism.
ReplyDeleteI think that Descartes quest is not one that is in vain. The only way that his methods would not work is if he started making a circular reference in every single one of his arguments. Otherwise it is entirely possible to keep a chain of reasoning going till you get to a reasonable base. These are the three conclusions we came to in class and I think that it is possible to achieve the latter two. If not, then that means that we have no way of knowing anything and as such we truly know nothing. We have to know something if only to justify our existence. Using the ideas of the senses is also something that I agree is in the right direction. They allow us direct contact into what we perceive as our existence and as such allow us to know the most about our surroundings. What Descarte attempts to argue is something that is sort of iffy. He bases our existence on that which we can clearly and distinctly perceive, which seems to be circular. It also seems very weak in my opinion. I can just say that I clearly perceive these words in front of me, but do the words exist? In a way they are just pixels on a screen and also our way to record abstract concepts. So the question still remains of whether words exist. I would say that words are similar to the forms that Plato talked about. In the line I would put the words on screen in the third part of the line, while words in general in the fourth part. Thus, if I talk about the forms then Descarte is wrong, but if I talk about the pixels then he would be correct. So Descarte’s definition of his foundations are not the higher “forms” that Plato mentions, but are instead the human perspective of them. And I think that this is as far as we will be able to determine our foundation, since it is almost impossible to explain the forms without falling back on our perspective of them.
ReplyDelete