One main factor that helps us through that is our instinctive judgment. Instinctive judgment is the unconscious knowing without deduction or reasoning . "Ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgment", this reflects that ways of knowing and instinctive judgment are intertwined. For example when a person is crossing the street he waits until there are no cars and then he proceeds to pass, using reason to deduce an intuitive judgment to assess the situation. I personally agree that ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgment, but not at all times.
First Descartes examined the various qualitative mathematical features regarding such objects, those that he found having existed within him already. Some of these properties were uniform when it comes to a certain object, initiating Descartes to think of them as things he must clearly acknowledge regardless of his conscious idea toward them. The existence of God was then used to prove the truth behind such objects; including even those of the senses for mathematical properties could be derived from them. Since Descartes could clearly and distinctively conceive God, which was indubitable, any clear and distinctive feature of material objects perceived would ensure their existence as well as anything else that were perceived in the same manner (Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, p.87-90). In other words, God’s existence acted as Descartes’ ultimate key that would help him achieve the perfect knowledge (Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy,
The only thing that Descartes view on this reveals is that of his own mind. This subsequently means that Descartes could not discover anything outside himself. He could understand things outside himself and believed that to know what ‘I’ means, he also must know the meaning of ‘you’ and ‘they’. However he could not assure that another exists because he is only able to be certain of ‘I think’. Another weakness is the idea that Descartes only knows of his existence through his thinking.
His family were successful wool cloth makers. Priestley proved his intelligence as a young kid by studying four advanced subjects : Metaphysics, math, logic, and philosophy. He also knew 6 languages, including greek, latin, and hebrew. I think he proved himself worthy of being a famous biologist just by learning all of this at a young kid. Most kids did not know that back then, and a lot of kids now wouldn’t know those subjects.
Socrates concludes his discussion on gymnastics and moves onto the subject of mathematics in book seven. Plato explains the four branches of study: mathematics, plane geometry, solid geometry and astronomy. While gymnastics and music aid in creating a harmonious soul, mathematics is meant to instill wisdom and knowledge within an individual. Socrates belief is that an individual should first study and fully understand the basics of mathematics before advancing to plane geometry, solid geometry and astronomy. Socrates believed that studying the four branches of mathematics would ensure an individual exhibited true wisdom.
“The mind of the knower makes an active contribution to experience of objects before us” (McCormick). There cannot be knowledge beyond the empirical. Kant believes it is possible because every cause has an effect and the knowledge gathered by reasoning. P2 is correct because math and science give general knowledge about the world because it has been taught and instilled in individuals how it all works, for the most part. It shapes the view of a person and gives a deeper insight about the world.
As a human being, we all have that one out of many similarities which is the ability to have an instinctive judgment. The title itself is stating that our ways of knowing are some kind of tool to look at our instinctive judgments, or if I may rephrase it into; “Our instinctive judgments are checked by our ways of knowing.” Now, how can our ways of knowing possibly be the check to our instinctive judgments? Based on the dictionary the word “instinctive” means, not thought about, planned or learned and done without conscious thought. To me personally the word “instinctive” means spontaneously, it can mean a very fast response of something, judging something without thinking about it first and just shout out the first thing that comes to our mind, by receiving the stimulus that our senses receive. Bring to mind that this ability to judge things with an unconscious thought relies pretty much on our senses, this has made me thinking and come up with a knowledge question, “To what extent do we need to rely very much on our senses to check our self after creating an instinctive judgment?”
Descartes felt the need for this “hyperbolic doubt” in order to reach an impartial truth. He then takes you through the thought process that led him to the one thing that lies beyond all doubt. He finds certainty in the statement Cogito, ergo sum or “I think, therefore I am.” In this essay I will explain Descartes’ thinking and reasoning that leads him to this statement, covering his first and second meditation. The first Meditation in Descartes Meditations On First Philosophy, is based on doubting almost everything he once believed as true. When Descartes found that beliefs he had were false, he realized all of his beliefs could be threatened.
His search for knowledge began with a claim of doubt. He doubts his senses, his body, everything he has experienced. In claiming doubt as his first step to knowledge, Descartes did not want to become a sceptic and doubt for the sake of doubting. His main intension in starting with doubt was to allow scientific inquiry to begin” (Reynolds). Once Descartes could doubt everything he “knew”, he was able to start over and really evaluate how he came to “know” these things and store them in his memories.