Countless arguments have attempted to explain how we can justify our belief system and why it is important. The most notable outlook would be Descartes skeptical argument, that the justifiability of beliefs are based on perceptions rather than our beliefs being simply justified. From this we are forced into skepticism, a belief where we can’t know anything to full extent. All beliefs must be rejected when there is a possibility of doubt to help ensure absolute certainty to what is true for basic principles and knowledge. This outlook pressures us to doubt all of our beliefs once known to be true, even beliefs that seem to be second nature or foundational. I think we must doubt our justifiable beliefs that are originally based on our perceptions …show more content…
Our senses can help us understand the truth in the nature of things and the world around us. However, we cannot trust only our senses because they may deceive us in regard to very far or small objects, our sensory knowledge as a whole is quite accurate. However, we can only understand the real world clearly and distinctly by our thinking and understanding of our minds. It is the only thing that can assure the certainty of the truth.
To be skeptical to all beliefs we must doubt everything, even some things that appear to be simple and justified like mathematics and even the existence of ourselves. How would we know what to doubt and what not to doubt? How can one say mathematics is undoubtable because of its concrete logical knowledge? We must doubt our intellectual knowledge and what appear to be assured truths. Descartes says, “Doubt is the origin of wisdom” and to explain further, we must start at this origin and then continue to understand the world around us to assure the
…show more content…
With the assumption of many people, we know when we are in a ‘dream’ state or in the ‘waking’ world; that the two are fundamentally different and are subject to different laws. If one can distinguish from ‘dreaming’ to ‘waking’ there must be a clear difference between our existing sensations and what we can consider a dream. However, how can you be certain that one thing happening in real life isn't in a dream. Things can happen both in the ‘dream’ or ‘waking’ state. Dream images are drawn from waking experience creating a universal possibility of dreaming. We can then present sensations that may be dream images so how would one be certain when distinguishing between in a dream on in a waking
There is much belief to suggest that we can depend on our senses unless there is just cause or evidence suggested to question their reliability. Therefore, the belief of reality may be subjected to interpretation or skepticism, but without solid evidence to discard what we believe to be true, we should be confident in what we hold to be true. Skepticism or Justified True Belief
Though not entirely rational, confirmation bias is how beliefs are made
Uneventful dreams such as going to the store or mowing the lawn can be convincing enough for you to be unaware that you are dreaming. Skeptics argue that because you are not able to distinguish between some dreams and the external world, then one is unable to trust their own perception. The dreaming argument begs the question that if you can not distinguish between dreams and the external world on certain occasions then you cannot be certain that you are not dreaming at any moment of your day. Opposers of this sceptical scenario might protest that they know they are awake therefore they are not dreaming, but they have no evidence to back their claim because they are using the senses that have deceived them in the past. They are unable to obtain any knowledge about whether they can trust their senses.
PBS’s, Nova What Are Dreams, is a forty-five-minute documentary about how different stages of sleep effect our dreams. Throughout the documentary, we also witness how dreaming is essential for making sense of the world around us. For nearly a century, many thought when one is asleep the brain is asleep as well. Yet not until technology advanced, did scientists begin examining sleeping patients to notice every ninety minutes their patients brain showed activity as if they were awake but were still unconscious.
To start off one of the characteristics of human nature is belief. This
Descartes, in his Meditations on First Philosophy, used a method of doubt; he doubted everything in order to find something conclusive, which he thought, would be certain knowledge. He found that he could doubt everything, expect that he was thinking, as doubting is a type of thinking. Since thinking requires a thinker, he knew he must exist. According to Descartes if you are able to doubt your existence, then it must mean that you exist, hence his famous statement cogito ergo sum which is translated into ‘I think, therefore I am.’ Descartes said he was able to doubt the existence of his body and all physical things, but he could not doubt that his mind exists.
James Harvey Robinson once said, “Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.” Peter Elbow’s “The Believing Game,” extends on this idea (without directly referencing it) in many ways. In “The Believing Game,” Elbow asserts the idea that our society is built around methodological skepticism. We have ingrained in ourselves this skepticism, but have methodologically separated it from the act of reject/not believing. Elbow acknowledges the usefulness of this, but sees it as only a half (albeit, a very useful half).
By choosing the believing game,I was able to overcome this struggle and was given a deeper understanding on how to deal with future issues. In order to examine how the believing game can bring a positive outcome compared to the doubting game, Elbow’s essay needs to be examined. My personal experience will be shared, and I will discuss why believing had a positive impact and left me with a deeper understanding. Throughout Elbow ’s essay, the reader is given the definition and rules for each of the two games, being believing and doubting.
William K. Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” is an essay about justification and how we are morally required to prove our beliefs. Clifford’s theory throughout the essay was “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Clifford thinks that it is a moral obligation for you to confirm each of your beliefs with sufficient proof, no matter how questionable or insignificant the beliefs may be. I believe he thinks this because beliefs have serious effects and consequences on others.
We know clear and distinct perceptions independently by God, and his existence provides us with a certainty we might not possess otherwise. However, another possible strategy would be to change Gods role in Descartes philosophy. Instead of seeing God as the validation of clear and distinct perceptions, rather see him as a safeguard against doubt. This strategy, however, is a problem since it re-constructs the Meditations – Philosophical work of Descartes –.This is because it would not be God, who is the ultimate foundation of knowledge, but the clear and distinct
He was trying to find a base of knowledge so reliable that the strongest of skepticisms cannot destroy it. Descartes bring up situations or scenarios of how we can be deceived from our own senses. For example, Descartes states that, “Whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from senses or through the sense. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once” (page 12).
Although in most dreams we are not aware of the fact that we are dreaming, a remarkable exception occurs in "lucid dreams" in which the dreamer “attains a clear cognition that he or she is dreaming while dreaming” (LaBerge 2000). This state can be viewed as being awake while
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.
Even though there are two sides of the argument people have agreed you can tell about a person life through viewing their common dreams. There are a number of common dreams that people have looked into. They view them and study them to see if it
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.