Analysis Of René Descartes Meditations I And Two
Every day we use the five senses to determine things. However, we use our logic to define them. Since a young age, we are taught to be mindful of our surroundings and are encouraged to rely more so on the senses than our logic. In René Descartes’ Meditations I and II, he begins epistemology project by questioning not only reality, but the trustworthiness of the body compared to the mind. After examining his arguments, I’m led to believe that we are right to rely more upon logic and be dubious about the reality of our surroundings and senses. However, I believe that in order to obtain what we call rationality and logic, we have to utilize the senses. While the senses can be deceiving, they are what allow us to hear, see, smell, taste, and touch,
…show more content…
Here, he discusses how a piece of wax can deceive the senses in that its form can be altering in such a way that it is no longer recognizable. Descartes explains this when states, “[s]ince I understand that the wax’s shape can change in innumerable ways, and since I can’t run through all the changes in my imagination, my comprehension of the wax’s flexibility and changeability cannot be the product of my ability to have mental images” (Descartes, 162). While Descartes presents a very compelling argument here, he appears to be forgetting how he came to be aware what a piece of wax can look like in its various forms. In order to comprehend that the physical object he is viewing is a piece wax, Descartes must have had previous experience of seeing what a wax in its different forms can look like. One does not initially see an alien object and determine through logic that it must be wax. One must reach back towards what they have learned previously by hearing, seeing, reading, tasting, smelling, and touching. How is one to ever determine what something is unless they are able to utilize the senses? For example, by looking at an image of a piece of wax with the label of the object, one can reasonably discover that they now have knowledge of wax. While they may only see one form of wax, they still have images that they’ve attained through sight to determine that it is indeed a piece of wax. Without seeing ever seeing a picture of wax, one would likely not be able to align the identification of the physical object with its appearance. This is not to disregard logic as a source of knowledge, but to highlight that it is critical to understand that the senses play a large role in acquiring
Here, he discusses how a piece of wax can deceive the senses in that its form can be altering in such a way that it is no longer recognizable. Descartes explains this when states, “[s]ince I understand that the wax’s shape can change in innumerable ways, and since I can’t run through all the changes in my imagination, my comprehension of the wax’s flexibility and changeability cannot be the product of my ability to have mental images” (Descartes, 162). While Descartes presents a very compelling argument here, he appears to be forgetting how he came to be aware what a piece of wax can look like in its various forms. In order to comprehend that the physical object he is viewing is a piece wax, Descartes must have had previous experience of seeing what a wax in its different forms can look like. One does not initially see an alien object and determine through logic that it must be wax. One must reach back towards what they have learned previously by hearing, seeing, reading, tasting, smelling, and touching. How is one to ever determine what something is unless they are able to utilize the senses? For example, by looking at an image of a piece of wax with the label of the object, one can reasonably discover that they now have knowledge of wax. While they may only see one form of wax, they still have images that they’ve attained through sight to determine that it is indeed a piece of wax. Without seeing ever seeing a picture of wax, one would likely not be able to align the identification of the physical object with its appearance. This is not to disregard logic as a source of knowledge, but to highlight that it is critical to understand that the senses play a large role in acquiring