Rene Descartes Epistemology: Meditations On First Philosophy
Epistemology: Meditations on First Philosophy — Skepticism
Rene Descartes’ take on epistemology concerns examining his core beliefs and applying the method of skepticism. He examines these beliefs by raising doubts on each of his core principles. He hopes to build a foundation which not even the strongest skeptic can raise a doubt on. Rene also proclaims that should he find anything from his core beliefs to doubt—even the slightest of doubts— he must reject the foundational belief simply because it is open to skeptical attacks. He also establishes that he must not go beyond what is simply and rightly true, such that they are what one cannot doubt without being irrational, or being mentally unstable. That would be downright absurd. However, Rene does not establish why, when he finds doubts on his core beliefs, he does not make the slightest attempt to defend his beliefs and respond to the doubts instead of simply rejecting those core beliefs because they are subject to skepticism. Does not he merely display ignorance then simply because he does not attempt to make conclusive responses to his doubts? Because if he were to doubt all of his core beliefs, then wouldn’t he posit himself in a more dangerous or critical position knowing that he no longer has anything to stand on? I take a stand against his method on skepticism, …show more content…
Rene asks, if the senses are a reliable source of knowledge, then why is it that when you place half of a stick inside the water, our perception of the object changes? Our sense of sight seems to deceive us and the depth of our perception can be said to be shallow. Therefore, senses are unreliable source of knowledge because, referring to the example above, senses trick and deceive us that the object is bent while submerged in water (which, in scientific fact, is actually the demonstration of refraction), when it, actually, is
Rene Descartes’ take on epistemology concerns examining his core beliefs and applying the method of skepticism. He examines these beliefs by raising doubts on each of his core principles. He hopes to build a foundation which not even the strongest skeptic can raise a doubt on. Rene also proclaims that should he find anything from his core beliefs to doubt—even the slightest of doubts— he must reject the foundational belief simply because it is open to skeptical attacks. He also establishes that he must not go beyond what is simply and rightly true, such that they are what one cannot doubt without being irrational, or being mentally unstable. That would be downright absurd. However, Rene does not establish why, when he finds doubts on his core beliefs, he does not make the slightest attempt to defend his beliefs and respond to the doubts instead of simply rejecting those core beliefs because they are subject to skepticism. Does not he merely display ignorance then simply because he does not attempt to make conclusive responses to his doubts? Because if he were to doubt all of his core beliefs, then wouldn’t he posit himself in a more dangerous or critical position knowing that he no longer has anything to stand on? I take a stand against his method on skepticism, …show more content…
Rene asks, if the senses are a reliable source of knowledge, then why is it that when you place half of a stick inside the water, our perception of the object changes? Our sense of sight seems to deceive us and the depth of our perception can be said to be shallow. Therefore, senses are unreliable source of knowledge because, referring to the example above, senses trick and deceive us that the object is bent while submerged in water (which, in scientific fact, is actually the demonstration of refraction), when it, actually, is