Descartes 'Argument From Past Failure'

Having asserted with absolute certainty his existence, Descartes attempted to remove the basis for doubting, a deceiving God, by first classifying in the Third Meditation which category of thoughts would be susceptible to doubt. Descartes divided thoughts into three categories: imagery, volitions and judgments, of which the third category could be most erroneous since judgment could lead to false ideas, a problem which could be resolved by considering them different modes of thoughts. These ideas could be further divided into three categories - innate, produced by one or adventitious. The last category was of particular importance: in term of representation, these ideas conveyed different degree of objective reality with omnipotent deities

Obey or Disobey In this paper, I will argue that Descrates theories are not cogent. I will do so by demonstrating that there are differences between what Descrates believes to be true and his two main factors, intellect & will. A major component for Descartes’ account of free will is explaining where it is that human error comes from.

In Meditations II, Descartes expresses doubt through a form of meditation. Descartes claims to have accepted many false opinions over time. However, to reject all previous opinions, he states that he needs to “rebuild from the foundation.” In the first section (paragraphs 3-4), Descartes questions our senses by inferring that they often deceive and mislead.

Descartes’ version of the ontological argument offers a logical conclusion for the existence of God. As is consistent among all versions of the ontological arguments, a series of premises are offered, that once excepted naturally draw the conclusion that God exists. Descartes argument builds off of the argument originally presented by Anselm 500 years prior to Descartes account. Arguably, Descartes strengthened the argument through adapting it to his Cartesian philosophy. Although, improvements may have been made, Descartes’ argument suffers from the same fallacious reasoning present in Anselm’s argument.

1) This essay aims to firstly analyse and explain Descartes’s God argument in Meditations three, specifically on the idea that perfection precedes imperfection. Then I will introduce possible oppositions to his view and attempt to defend it from his position. Lastly, I will provide my own view pertaining to his argument. Firstly, the idea of perfection here is an assumption of God’s trait that also relates to being infinite.

Philosophy has been around for more than a thousand years, and it is still relevant up to now. Philosophy, deriving from the Greek words philo and sophos, means love of wisdom. Wisdom is something we apply to ourselves in order to improve our actions and the way we think. Our experiences affects our view on how to approach life. Therefore, having wisdom is essential in our lives.

A particularly interesting aspect of Descartes’s skeptical argument is the dream argument and, by extension, the evil demon argument. If we follow the dream argument to its conclusion and become skeptical about the existence of the external world and our ability to draw knowledge from our senses, a troubling conundrum arises. If we consider it impossible to distinguish reality from dreaming and we also consider that a test to differentiate between the two states cannot be reliably performed, then let us imagine a hypothetical scenario where a person is awake and dreaming for an equal amount of time. How, then, do we draw a distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness? Between the sleeping dreaming world and what we consider to be the

Rene Descartes aims to use rational theory to answer the question how do we know we exist and that if anything is real. He provides a model for perception and understanding in his search for knowledge. Descartes’ model of knowledge is significant in his contribution to the thinking process. Ridding himself of all prejudice and prejudgments, leading him to doubt everything previously taken to be true he begins his process of knowing based upon a scientific approach and attempted to give a rational answer to his problem. Thus, reasoning and deductive processes were employed by him to discover knowledge.

Descartes ‘Dream Argument’ is the idea that as there is no way to tell one's dreams from one's waking experience, because they are phenomenologically identical (Meaning they have the same epistemological and cognitive value); senses cannot be trusted. Descartes arrives at this conclusion because he believes that he had often confused the dream world with the waking, as he dreams that, “that I am here in my dressing-gown, sitting by the fire” showing that one cannot trust knowledge gained through the senses if they are so easily deceived by dreams. In theory, one would be inclined to believe what Descartes presents, if one couldn’t verify the validity of an experience one would logically reject the things the experience relies on as a valid source of knowledge. However, one can tell when they are dreaming or not, hence Descartes has no ground to stand on in saying arguing this. Descartes explicitly states that there “are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep”.

The Tasks of Human Will and Reason In this paper I will be addressing the fundamental roles of human will and human reason, deemed by Petrarch, a Renaissance humanist. Francesco Petrarca, better known as Petrarch was a renowned but controversial philosopher and poet. Petrarch was a heavy influencer to the Medieval humanist movement and is considered to be one of the first contributors to the extensive trend. Renaissance humanism was a profound reaction to the flawed Medieval educational institution and impaired societal practices.