Descartes, Hume and Skepticism Essay

Comparing Knowledge in Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy and Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,

Descartes’ method of radical doubt focuses upon finding the truth about certain things from a philosophical perspective in order to truly lay down a foundation for ideas that have the slightest notion of doubt attached to them. He believed that there was “no greater task to perform in philosophy, than assiduously to seek out, once and for all, the best of all these arguments and to lay them out so precisely and plainly that henceforth all will take them to be true demonstrations” (Meditations, 36). The two key concepts that Descartes proves using the method of doubt are that the “human soul does not die with the body, and that God exists” as mentioned in his Letter of Dedication, since there are many that don’t believe the mentioned concepts because of the fact that they have not been proven or demonstrated. (Meditations, 35). In order to prove the above, he lays out six Meditations, each focusing on a different theme that leads us “to the knowledge of our mind and of God, so that of all things that can be known by the human mind, these latter are the most certain and the most evident” (Meditations, 40).

I do agree that Hume's epistemology is a “wrecking ball” on the grounds that Hume's thoughts develop a radical skepticism, it decreases metaphysics to pretentious nonsense, breaking beliefs of god, mind, and the irrelevant self to smithereens. Furthermore, Hume questions the philosophical validity of the most respected of all scientific concepts, specifically that of causality itself, claiming that our utilization of it cannot be logically justified either in scientific or in commonsense pondering. Many other philosophers, including Hume's, upset conventional pondering and oblige us to reexamine our formerly accepted conceptions about ourselves and the nature of reality. Eventually, Hume concludes that we have no definite knowledge about the

Skepticism is something that we all have to one degree or another. Some of us who carry some Limited (Local) Skepticism might question whether we can really know if the news anchor is giving us correct information or if the five day forecast is really on track this time regarding the rain it is predicting. Others subscribe to the Global Skepticism view; that is, they would argue that we cannot know anything at all, and, therefore, we can’t have knowledge of anything (Feldman 109). As a global skeptic, we would not only challenge the same things that limited skeptics confront, but we would challenge the very essence of our being. If this form of skepticism is valid, we would have to reexamine

René Descartes was a skeptic, and thus he believed that in order for something to be considered a true piece of knowledge, that “knowledge must have a certain stability,” (Cottingham 21). In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes concludes that in order to achieve this stability, he must start at the foundations for all of his opinions and find the basis of doubt in each of them. David Hume, however, holds a different position on skepticism in his work An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, for he criticizes Descartes’ claim because “‘it is impossible,’” (qtd. in Cottingham 35). Both philosophers show distinct reasoning in what skepticism is and how it is useful in finding stability.

René Descartes was an extremely influential 17th-century philosopher and came up with many ideas that still persist to this day. One of those ideas was Cartesian skepticism, which states that “the view that we do not or cannot have knowledge in regard to a particular domain,” knowledge, in this case, is justified, true, beliefs. He first comes up with his idea of skepticism in the first part of his work “Meditations On First Philosophy,” aptly named “Of the things which may be brought within the sphere of the doubtful.” In his first meditation, he discusses his doubts with sensory illusion/error, possible dream states, and regarding deception by an evil demon. However, after dissolving his first two doubts, he gets stuck on the third and

Rene Descartes was a brilliant man and led the way for modern philosophy. When it came to the role of skepticism, he doubted everything to find a basic truth, if any. He came to a conclusion for two beliefs, the dreaming world and the evil demon, the dreaming world was if anything, this could all be a dream, while the evil demon keeps you from the truth, by deceiving. God plays a big role for resolving his doubts because for a lesser being to have doubts, we must originate it from a greater being (god). Since god is good he would not allow the evil demon to have his way, clearing all doubt for Descartes.

Cartesian Skepticism Cartesian Skepticism refers to the use of methodical doubt as a tool for testing beliefs and reaching certainty. It was devised by Ren´e Descartes Ren´e Descartes (1596-1650) is considered the father of modern philosophy. In addition to being a philosopher, he was also a renowned mathematician and scientist. Many times Beliefs are built on other beliefs.

And so he incorporates this methodic doubt. What is this methodic doubt? He wishes to examine the things that we think are true and we should be setting aside the beliefs we had that could possibly lead us to doubt. When we doubt something, we neither believe nor disbelieve it or rather we are going to suspend our judgments. Descartes in his methodic doubt will simply explain that how we are to become uncertain with our knowledge, even if it seems to be obvious.

The two primary objections that we will view are related to his methodology of doubt and his proof of God. Thomas Hobbes objected to Descartes methodology of doubt by claiming he was leading people into doubt. Furthermore it has been objected that it would not be possible to truly doubt in the manner that Descartes is claiming to doubt, and that some things simply cannot be doubted. These are minor objections; first, Descartes is not leading people into doubt, but into his methodology of doubt. He is not attempting to cultivate true skepticism in his readers, but is rather attempting to establish what could potentially be doubted to confirm what is necessarily true. It is also true that it would not be possible to truly doubt as Descartes is; he is well aware of this and uses doubt merely as a tool. Lastly, it is true that some things cannot be doubted, and Descartes is using his methodology of doubt in pursuit of that which cannot be

While skepticism claims that an individual cannot be certain of anything in this world, in his Meditations on First Philosophy¸ René Descartes opposes this claim by providing his audience with reasoning to inform that there is something we can be certain about. He uses Cartesian skepticism to convince his audience. To be convinced, a process is required. His process of persuading his audience come from not only his First,

Descartes raises the argument for universal doubt, for he says, “…it will suffice for the rejection of all of these opinions, if I find in each of them some reason for doubt” (Meditations, 13). For example, a phenomenon such as smallness created by distance is something that can be doubted. But either way, even with correct observing

Because Descartes wants to find an absolute correct thing to be the starting point of philosophical reflection. Rather than an objective purpose, doubt for him is just a way to discover a truly reliable objective, a basis of all knowledge, which cannot be denied by any means. Descartes supposes that the reason why people always have different opinions about politics; art, religion and so on is because there is plenty of incorrect knowledge existing and spreading in this world. But if so, how can we solve this problem by sorting out the incorrect knowledge while keeping the correct ones? There, Descartes puts forward this method which is to find the real truth by doubting all existing knowledge and discarding those which have the possibility

I do believe that Descartes’ project of doubt is philosophically important. In that, I can see how his arguments and views could possibly lead us closer to truth. One reason I believe this is philosophically important is because of Descartes attempt to release himself from habitual opinions along with everything he was taught to accept growing up. Instead, he decides to create a new foundation and a new way of thinking, which is why I believe this attempt could lead us closer to the truth by rejecting or doubting what we know to be because growing up we are told to just go along with it. Instead, challenging what we know to be, could lead to discovering something new and along the way it can gear us closer to the truth. Descartes also argues

Descartes was most well known for his method of doubt that he established. He decided