Descartes
believes that all things can be doubted.
Each thing does not need to be questioned specifically, because all
things are built from certain presuppositions that are uncertain (Meditations
13-14). The first of these
is the senses, which have faltered in the past and so cannot be certain in the
present: “it is a mark of prudence never to put our complete trust in those who
have deceived us even once” (Meditations 14). Even when the senses seem to be perceiving an obvious truth,
they are not proof of anything because those “truths” appear just as obvious
when we dream (Meditations 14). From
here Descartes reasons that imaginary things are based in reality: they are
built from the same universal truths.
Imagination is simply an imitation of reality; therefore, though
corporeal objects that we come to know from the senses may be false, the simple
things such as mathematics, which is unconcerned with the existence of the
corporeal is not proven false by the weakness of the senses (Meditations 14-15). However, that such things cannot be
doubted by doubting the senses is not enough to make them certain. It is possible that a malicious God has
deceived us into believing that a square has four sides. People falter in things they believe
they know perfectly, so why not in this too (Meditations 15-16)? Therefore, by this method, all things
and even their forms are put into doubt.
By
doubt, Descartes means treating as false all that is not absolutely proven
true. This is not a courtroom in
which a thing is proven if it is beyond “reasonable doubt.” The smallest doubt is as much reason
for rejection as the largest (Meditations 13). In the case of doubting mathematics, we see Descartes go so
far as to doubt that objective and permanent things such as “three” or “square
can be known by our reason (Meditations 15). This in particular is what leads Descartes to the
realization that everything can and must be doubted.
Doubting
mathematics and similar things only by means of doubting our own abilities to
perceive truth brings up a question.
Though Descartes doubts our abilities, he never doubts the permanence of
the simple things. What if the
idea of a square is called into question?
Descartes notes that he may be wrong that a square has four sides
because he has miscounted, but what if a square is sometimes four sided and
other times six? Does this change
any of Descartes later conclusions on his own existence?
As you mentioned, "Descartes never doubts the permanence of simple things", meaning that he doesn't doubt universals, which are true regardless if they exist or not. I think that a square is a universal because it is neither imagined or perceived by the senses. It is a factor of reason and intellect. Therefore, a square cannot "sometimes" have six sides. This doesn't change any of Descartes later conclusions it only enhances them in that he is able to separate the mind from the body by stating that intellect is a power of the mind that requires consciousness, whereas the body uses the senses which leads to doubt.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that we could doubt things like universals - which normally have no basis for doubt - only because there may be an "evil genius" fooling us into believing them is very unsettling. I guess that's why it's referred to as radical doubt. I just find the idea of doubting something as simple as the universals with a way more doubtful idea, namely the existence of a God (or "evil genius"), really absurd.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both comments, in that something that is universal can not be doubted, rather its final outcome will be the same throughout whether it is questioned today, tomorrow a year from now. The only thing that can and will change is the composition. Let's take numbers for example yes it can range high or low in ranking, but no matter if u +, -, x, / the ending result will be the same.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with the last comment written by Afiya because u say 'let's take numbers for example yes it can range high or low in ranking but no matter if u +,-,x,/ the ending result will be the same".Descartes mainly deals with the idea of numbers correct? So if we say 2+3 of those parts equal 5 parts to that one object..2x3 of those same parts are 6 not 5.If that is what you are trying to say then I disagree if I'm not misconstruing what you are actually trying to say I can be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI don't really agree with this statement "Descartes notes that he may be wrong that a square has four sides because he has miscounted, but what if a square is sometimes four sided and other times six?" If a square doesn't have four sides, its not a square, it matters not if Descartes had miscounted or not. Just like how 2+2 can be proven to be 5(but its not).
ReplyDeleteNote: this proof has a major flaw(it is technically correct tho)...
(1) let x = 2+2
(2)[multiply by x-1] x(x-1)=(2+2)(x-1)
(3) x^2 -x = 2x+2x-2-2
(4)[subtract 3x] x^2-4x=x-4
(5)[multiply by x-5] (x-5)(x^2-4x)=(x-5)(x-4)
(6)x^3-9x^2+20x=x^2-9x+20
(7)x(x-4)(x-5)=(x-4)(x-5)
(8)[divide by x-4] x^2-5x=x-5
(9)[add 4x] x^2-x=5x-5
(10)x(x-1)=5(x-1)
(11)[divide by (x-1)] x=5
Descartes method of questioning the existence of everything, using radical or hyperbolic doubt, leads him to question human reason, intellect and senses, and even the existence of God questioning whether he might be a supremely sly powerful deceiver (Meditations 25). This line of questioning leads him to conclude that God does indeed exist, is not a deceiver and in fact is the supreme and infinite being which enables us as humans to conceive of his infinity (Meditations 31). But this conclusion makes me circle back to Descartes original questions about what exists and how we know anything to be true: because if God is infinite, doesn’t it mean that he encompasses everything all at once – including evil and deception? And if so, then wouldn’t it be possible for God to be the sly and powerful deceiver imagined by Descartes, bringing the existence of everything back into question?
ReplyDelete