Descartes Evil Genius Problem Analysis

Historically, philosophers and scholars have been known to argue and disagree about the most trivial matters because of the prejudices and biases towards the subject matter. Descartes popularized the methodological doubt because he realized that throughout his life he had acquired and maintained certain opinions and beliefs that he later discovered were false. Methodological doubt was a process that sought to attain the truth that was beyond dispute or was doubted by human beings and his fellow philosophers. Therefore, the methodic doubt was an approach to knowledge that would filter and sift through all the beliefs and opinions that people had and categorize then to create indubitably true knowledge. It was important in establishing a firm foundation of unchanging facts and knowledge from which people could base or dispute the knowledge, beliefs, and information they had amerced in their lifetimes. Doubting all things helps people be more cautious about the things they believe in, thereby making them less susceptible to deceit. Methodological doubt enhances rationality and reason as it ensures that an individual relies on reasoning to ascertain the trueness or the falseness of the knowledge they acquire. Methodological doubt implies that we cannot trust the senses and how they shape how we experience the world as a baseline for gauging the truthfulness or otherwise of the knowledge, opinions, and beliefs other people or we

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 First Meditation, René Descartes called upon all knowledge to be doubtful. It was a significant reflection on how reality and dreams are vague. By eliminating previous knowledge and theories, Descartes wiped out every conceivable mistake in finding new establishments of information. An indisputable outcome of questioning the senses induced the chance that God is in actuality a malevolent liar, a powerful being capable of manipulating the senses. In the Second Meditation while he contemplates the previous day, he discovered trouble in solving his questions and deemed his senses and memory conniving and faulty.

In his philosophical thesis, of the ‘Mind-Body dualism’ Rene Descartes argues that the mind and the body are really distinct, one of the most deepest and long lasting legacies.

I agree with Clifford and his statement which expresses the fact that you need proof to believe in your beliefs. In life there are thousands of things to believe in. For example, the statement "I won’t die tomorrow". Just because I said it, doesn’t make it true. I would need concrete evidence to prove it. Clifford believes you need enough evidence to believe in something because belief is a false sense of hope that causes doubtful actions which could cause a spiral of projected situations that can lead to either good or bad outcomes. These outcomes could have officially been avoided if such “belief” never existed and the first projection was actually proved. I believe he is right because without solid evidence, a belief could cause a domino effect of situations which could easily been avoided. It is just unreasonable to have a belief and not have confirmation to back it up. Obviously it would require some serious energy to really evaluate these cases, but in the end of the day you will have

Meditation is the introspective process that involves the mind turning back in and upon itself, removing itself from the material world and focusing its attention inward. Descartes employs meditation to detach the minds from external influences, to think and analyze philosophy from the original foundations. This brings us to Descartes First Meditation, with the introduction of the method of doubt, he presents his philosophical project and claims that in order to complete his project he needs to question the truth behind all his beliefs. He attempts to accomplish this impossible feat because as he’s aged he has realized the false foundations that he has held onto thus far and the ideas he’s built on them. To be able to tear down these beliefs,

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). However, Descartes is indeed certain of the fact that he is a thinking being, and that he exists. As a result of this argument, Descartes makes a conclusion that the things he perceives clearly and distinctly cannot be false, and are therefore true (Blanchette).

Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver.

Humans are unlike any other creature on this planet, as we are able to think and reason. These two abilities have created the most powerful minds ever known such as, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Plato. These abilities have also lead to some powerful arguments one of such being our beliefs. Some philosophers believe that all beliefs must be justified, while others believe that only some of our beliefs must be justified. W.K. Clifford argues that it is morally wrong to act or believe without sufficient evidence. This means Clifford was an evidentialist. William James argues that sometimes it is allowed to believe without sufficient evidence.

The debate of Naturalism versus Christian Views is a topic that garners a lot of attention, especially in scientific endeavors. Naturalism beliefs stem from the view that through scientific investigation you can discover how natural laws or forces operate in the world through evolution over time. On the other hand, Christians believe that God is in control of the universe and that He created humans with a body and a soul allowing a consciousness to be present during mental activities. When looking at this debate the questions that need to be asked is “What is a soul” and “Are thoughts and brain activity the same thing”?

Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions. While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built. Ironically, his skepticism offers such that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be a deceiving being. As such, my doubt about the possibility of such a being serves to undermine the greater doubt that is supposed to be generated by this being. In order for the evil demon to generate such a degree of doubt it must be possible for it to exist. However, Descartes does not provide enough proof for his claim of its possibility. This shows that Descartes’ evil demon argument fails to prove absolute doubt, which he

Descartes begins Meditation I by stating that in order for him to establish anything in the sciences that was constant, he would have to start from the foundations of all knowledge. By claiming this, he is adopting skepticism which is not him rejecting his beliefs, but doubting them.

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.

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.

124). His other point is that God having a sufficient reason for permitting evil is not the same as having a hallucination. He states that having good reason for the existence of God increases the possibility that He has a reason for permitting gratuitous suffering (p. 124). He also counters the claim that there is no evidence to suggest that God is all-good and all-powerful. He refers to his moral argument—wherein without the existence of God, objective moral values would also cease to exist, but objective moral values do exist and thus God also must exist—to make the claim that God is all-good (p. 125). He also refers to the cosmological argument to show that God is an all-powerful being who created the universe out of nothing.