Descartes Cogito Argument
“I think, therefore I am” otherwise known as the cogito argument is a famous phrase by René Descartes. In his first two meditations, Descartes encounters several information that he is skeptical about. He is uncertain about his knowledge, his senses, his body, and his existence, but he is able to provide explanations to gain deeper understanding of each. He provides various arguments in the things that he is able to trust, and things that he requires further knowledge on, which can possibly be solved when he has acquired the truth about them. Descartes poses numerous questions, some of which he later realizes that he cannot answer, thus resulting in him proposing an alternate route that he could take. Ergo, Descartes was able to quell skepticism
…show more content…
Focusing more on the first two meditations, skepticism would prove to be the main challenge that Descartes encounters in his attempt to verify his knowledge, and his existence. The first meditation outlines the stages of doubt that he goes through when understanding if the knowledge that people have acquired are correct, or not. He unceasingly begins to be skeptical about everything that he obtains through his senses, as well as all his previous knowledge about the world. The uncertainty regarding his senses seemingly begins with the observation that his senses had deceived him in previous encounters, which sprouts the idea that if they had once been wrong, then it is possible that they could be incorrect in other circumstances, if not all of them. He solves this particular problem by concluding that he can reasonably reject a certain idea if he finds probable cause to doubt it. “But, since reason now convinces me that I ought to withhold my assent… I can justify the rejection of all my beliefs if in each I can find some ground for doubt” (Melchert, p. 321). Thus, Descartes does not necessarily have to find proof that every information that he has attained is accurate which he claims would be a tedious act, he just has to find some evidence that suggests uncertainty (p. …show more content…
Since he could not come up with reasonable solutions with valid support, he pauses that line of questioning. “I am forced to admit that nothing that I used to believe is beyond legitimate doubt—not because I have been careless or playful, but because I have valid and well-considered grounds for doubt” (p. 322). Descartes rationalizes that the idea that God is deceiving him is unstable because it contains a series of doubts—such as God is said to be supremely good but being deceitful goes against that very idea—that indicate instability. From this reasoning, he acquires another possible answer which outlines that he is in fact being deceived, not by God, but by a demon whose task is to mislead him. While this argument does show rationality, Descartes claims that he is not capable of knowing if it is the truth. Thus, he says that even though he cannot wholly believe on what is true, he can continue to find grounds for doubt before accepting any knowledge (p.
Focusing more on the first two meditations, skepticism would prove to be the main challenge that Descartes encounters in his attempt to verify his knowledge, and his existence. The first meditation outlines the stages of doubt that he goes through when understanding if the knowledge that people have acquired are correct, or not. He unceasingly begins to be skeptical about everything that he obtains through his senses, as well as all his previous knowledge about the world. The uncertainty regarding his senses seemingly begins with the observation that his senses had deceived him in previous encounters, which sprouts the idea that if they had once been wrong, then it is possible that they could be incorrect in other circumstances, if not all of them. He solves this particular problem by concluding that he can reasonably reject a certain idea if he finds probable cause to doubt it. “But, since reason now convinces me that I ought to withhold my assent… I can justify the rejection of all my beliefs if in each I can find some ground for doubt” (Melchert, p. 321). Thus, Descartes does not necessarily have to find proof that every information that he has attained is accurate which he claims would be a tedious act, he just has to find some evidence that suggests uncertainty (p. …show more content…
Since he could not come up with reasonable solutions with valid support, he pauses that line of questioning. “I am forced to admit that nothing that I used to believe is beyond legitimate doubt—not because I have been careless or playful, but because I have valid and well-considered grounds for doubt” (p. 322). Descartes rationalizes that the idea that God is deceiving him is unstable because it contains a series of doubts—such as God is said to be supremely good but being deceitful goes against that very idea—that indicate instability. From this reasoning, he acquires another possible answer which outlines that he is in fact being deceived, not by God, but by a demon whose task is to mislead him. While this argument does show rationality, Descartes claims that he is not capable of knowing if it is the truth. Thus, he says that even though he cannot wholly believe on what is true, he can continue to find grounds for doubt before accepting any knowledge (p.