Descartes 'Argument From Past Failure'

In the first two of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes builds skepticism and then begins to dispel it. In the first, Descartes calls into mind three possibilities to prove our inability to trust our senses and what we fundamentally believe to be true. Descartes’ main refutation of this skepticism is known as the Cogito. The Cogito claims that since Descartes’ thinks, he must at a minimum exist as a thinking thing. In the remainder of Meditations, the Cogito serves as the fundamental premise for Descartes’ proofs for the existence of God and of body. I contend that as it is in Meditations, the Cogito is easily refuted. I argue that Descartes’ response to Mersenne alleviates most of these refutations, as his response shifts

Descartes’ first argument for the existence of God In meditations of the first philosophy, Descartes reflects that he is often deceived by his senses. He therefore decides to discard all his pre-conceived notions and start from scratch to find out things that he is absolutely certain about. Descartes begins by showing that he is certain about only one thing, which is that he exists as a thinking thing. The fact that he can doubt his own existence goes on to show that he exists and that he is a thinking thing capable of doubting, imagining, willing etc.

Rene Descartes Mediations, discusses a wide variety of topics such as the concept of God, Dualism, Deception through the senses and many more. In the Second Meditations, Descartes mentions the idea of sense perception and how we use it to understand the information we gain from our experiences. The passage selected will illustrate the idea behind sense perception and the mental processes we use to better understand it.

He first goes on to note that the senses can deceive us, and that things are not always just as they seem at first glance to be. He claims our senses can deceive us and our very own perception of reality or what events are happening around us can be false. We may believe that what we are experiencing is true, but who’s to say that we are not actually living some other existence but our sense of reality is deceiving us. Descartes then goes on to mention the dream problem, where he goes on to say that we may dream of the physical world but who’s to say that we are not imagining our very existence. Can we truly distinguish everything we know or perceive to be true from our dreams and imagination, and possibly doubt that anything physical truly exists, that there is an external world at

In the sixth meditation, Descartes postulates that there exists a fundamental difference in the natures of both mind and body which necessitates that they be considered as separate and distinct entities, rather than one stemming from the other or vice versa. This essay will endeavour to provide a critical objection to Descartes’ conception of the nature of mind and body and will then further commit to elucidating a suitably Cartesian-esque response to the same objection. (Descartes,1641) In the sixth meditation Descartes approaches this point of dualism between mind and matter, which would become a famous axiom in his body of philosophical work, in numerous ways. To wit Descartes postulates that he has clear and distinct perceptions of both

Upon reading Pascal and Descartes, I found their stance on the existence of God very interesting, and different. Whereas Descartes follows on his notion of, “I exist, therefore I am”, and by reason he is able to understand that God exists, Pascal takes different approach, claiming that we cannot know such a finite thing. In Pascal’s Wager, he claims that we must choose to believe whether or not there is a God. In this essay, I will discuss how Descartes’s influenced Pascal’s thinking. I will first outline Descartes’s argument for the existence of God. I will then outline Pascal’s wager and argue that it is in response to Descartes’s philosophy on God. {Further, I will compare and contrast the emphasis of rhetoric between these two philosophers, and argue that Pascal moves toward a hermeneutic perspective in his Art of Persuasion.} Finally, I will discuss whether or not Pascal’s perspective and emphasis on context prove to hold more firm in his arguments than Descartes’.

Notre Dame ID: 902008117 In René Descartes ' Mediations on First Philosophy, Descartes abandons all previous notions or things that he holds to be true and attempts to reason through his beliefs to find the things that he can truly know without a doubt. In his first two meditations Descartes comes to the conclusion that all that he can truly know is that he exists, and that he is a thinking being. In his third meditation, Descartes concludes that he came to know his existence, and the fact that he is a thinking being, from his clear and distinct perception of these two facts. Descartes then argues that if his clear and distinct perception would turn out to be false, then his clear and distinct perception that he was a thinking being would not have been enough to make him certain of it (Blanchette).

Descartes argues for skepticism in his Meditations, but I don’t think it is successful because it seems rational to conclude that although Descartes’ arguments are strong and logical, they aren’t sturdy enough to produce the necessary level of doubt. I believe that individuals can believe in their senses if we practice caution, that individuals can distinguish between a dream and reality, and that Descartes’ skepticism undermines itself.

Descartes uses the dream experience and the idea of an evil genius to explain that our senses can deceive us. Descartes talks about systematic doubt which means our sense experiences can deceive us. Descartes explains his dream argument in the First Mediation that there is no way to distinguish whether the experiences in your dreams from those when you are awake. While one is dreaming, one usually do not know that they are dreaming unless they are in a lucid a dream, which means they do realize they are dreaming. An example on how dreams can deceive us is the experiencing of a visual sensation.

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 does not explicitly state his system of knowledge, but he builds up a true and certain foundation of knowledge in the first meditation of his book, Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes’s ultimate goal is find the foundation of knowledge that is indubitable. In fulfillment of his goal, Descartes thinks, he must give up all the preconceived idea he used to have and start from the foundation. Descartes develops his first mediation by illustrating the deception of our senses, demonstrating the dreaming example and lastly creating the “malicious demon” assumption. These steps have a profound impact on building up Descartes’s “Cogito theory”, which he will address in the second mediation.

In this paper, I will deliver a reconstruction of Descartes’ Cogito Argument and my reasoning to validate it as indubitable. I will do so by justifying my interpretations through valid arguments and claim, by showcasing examples with reasoning. Rene Descartes is a French Philosopher of the 17th century, who formulated the philosophical Cogito argument by the name of ‘cogito ergo sum,’ also known as “I think, therefore, I am.” Rene was a skeptic philosopher amongst many scholastic philosophers at his time. He took a skeptical approach towards the relations between thoughts and existence, to interpret his cogito argument as indubitable and whether it could serve as a foundational belief.

In the Second Meditation, what is the Cogito, and what does it tell me for certain about my own existence? What is strongest and what is weakest in Descartes’ account?

While assuming these things, Descartes disproves his own argument. He states that one can never know anything through senses, because at any moment one might be dreaming and therefore the evidence on which you are basing your beliefs might be false. Stroud ’s argument, in modus ponens argument form, refutes Descartes’ argument regarding the external world.

Anh Nguyen - PHIL 256 Final Descartes’s arguments for the existence of God and its fallacies Descartes (1596 – 1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician and scientist. At an early age, he received his education from the Jesuits and the experience with the Aristotelian ideals there upset him, yet the field of mathematics fascinated him with its precision, uniform certainty and necessity. This dissonance eventually planted a seed into his mind and drove him to question about the nature of knowledge, namely whether it can match mathematics’ indubitableness. Descartes’ attempts in resolving the problem resulted in his Meditations of First Philosophy (1641), which was written in response to queries regarding his new philosophical basis for a novel way to approach the system of knowledge. Upon its publication, Descartes’ Meditations provoked controversy among the Aristotelians – indeed it was an assault on the Aristotelian