Descartes, Hume, and the author of Ecclesiastes express some form of skepticism. From their reading and arguments, we understand the extent of their skepticism and how they differ. In this paper, we will express the form of skepticism from Ecclesiastes, Descartes, and Hume. We will proceed ahead to illustrate how their skepticism differs. Moreover, we will provide insight into the different problems that the three philosophers are trying to confront with their respective versions. Furthermore, we will give viable reasons why Descartes version is the most plausible compared to the arguments of other authors.
Furthermore, there might be a gain in our toil, but the question is, how long will it last? The question helped the author to conclude that despite amassing possessions, fame, and success, death is a great leveler and will automatically cancel the gains. Wisdom is thought to have some advantage over foolishness, but even the benefits of wisdom are temporary even though it qualifies to be applied by gifted persons. The book was written in the 3rd century B.C during the period when Judea was beneath the tyrannical dominance of Egypt Kings. Ecclesiastes 4:1 asserts, “Again I saw all the oppressions that are practiced under the sun. Look, the tears of the oppressed- with no one to comfort them! On the side of the oppressors, there was power- with no one to comfort them.”
As a result of the ruthless nature of the Kings, the fate of Jews was predetermined as they remained powerless and unable to transform things for the better. Skepticism arises in the approach of God when dealing with the situation. God appears remote and reticent, and people are pessimistic and not expecting to understand the little impact of God’s action in the world (3:16-17). The book of Ecclesiastes is composed in an honest and blunt assessment approach. It corrects the extreme self-assurance among people. The radical skepticism applied by the author of Ecclesiastes concludes that human beings should rejoice in whatsoever gifts offered by God (Ecclesiastes 2:24, 11:9).
In an inquiry concerning human understanding, Hume demonstrates that skepticism applied in previous sections did not have the capability to underestimate our reasoning from the perspective of common life. Nature is said to remain winning against instances of abstract reasoning. Nevertheless, his assertions demonstrate there is a phase of human reasoning from experience that fails to be reinforced by a process of understanding. The sentiments illustrate that human beings proceed to reason on the basis of cause and effect despite the lack of solid reason behind it. He warns that this is incorrect.
Hume talks about the skeptical doubts that arise from the operation of the understanding. The author proclaims that entire projects of human inquiry are divided into two: relations of ideas, and matters of fact (Hume, and Millican 24). The matters of fact are to be ascertained when people realize the ultimate reasons for things. Our experiences are condensed to more universal ones.
In section V, Hume offers skeptical solutions to the skeptical doubts. In the first part, he clearly asserts that skeptics promote doubt, confinement of inquiry, and the suspense of judgment. Skepticism lacks the capability to destroy morality (Hume, and Millican 25). Hume contends that there lacks the rational basis of believing in the cause and effect, and we should only embrace the custom or habit.
Descartes (6) expresses skepticism arguments in his book. Descartes first skeptic argument highlights the unreliability of the senses argument. Descartes argues that he had realized the number of the false beliefs that he had viewed as true before he began writing previously. Moreover, Descartes asserts that he has realized that not all the aspects he had learned are no longer true. As he addresses “if I can find in each one some reason to doubt, this will suffice to justify my rejecting the whole.” From this section, we can start to conclude what is true (Descartes 6).
In the first Meditation, Descartes claims that our ordinary experiences of the entire globe cannot offer the form of assured foundation in which all the other knowledge can be grounded. He views that people are all disappointed by the mere biases. He reveals that such disappointments should make us surprised on whether all the other aspects that we perceive are probably mistaken. Descartes (6) asserts that Descartes recommends that people should employ a method that will avoid errors by identifying what we are aware of a firm foundation of indubitable beliefs.
The second skeptical argument in the 1st Meditation is referred as dream argument. Descartes (4) claims that he frequently dreams of things that appear real to him while asleep. The audience wonders on how Descartes knows that he is aware of this when he is not dreaming right now. In general, people can’t ascertain that at any period that they are awake rather than dreaming. Descartes perceives that people are not deceived to the truths of logic whether when awake or sleeping (ibid).
Descartes (4) asserts that the third skeptic argument in the 2nd Meditation is the evil genius argument. He views that an evil genius might be controlling his mind and that they are imaginations. This argument is the best skeptic argument because it states that the evil-genius is powerful and can trigger doubts about anything for which it is possible to generate doubts (ibid).
In the second meditation, Descartes (5) argues that there is one suggestion that he cannot conceivable doubt which is typical ‘I exist.’ He claims that even if everything can be perceived as doubtable, not everything is dubitable. He contends that I exist certain true irrespective of the method of universal doubt. Descartes (5) disputes that feels that he exists because he can perceive. Descartes views that his ability to observe objects with particular properties makes him distinct. He offers a perfect example of himself watching wax that appears fresh from the hive and consistently sweet from the honey it holds. Descartes addresses that he can see the color and the state of the honey and even though he goes near the fire, it melts into a liquid, and this makes the honey inexistent (Descartes 5). He relates this illustration with the concept that the mind plays a critical role in his existence because he thinks he exists (ibid).
Hume and Descartes differ on their Cartesian skepticism. Descartes presents the notion that he does not believe in his senses, and all that he viewed as in existence should be doubted. His first meditation is backed up by three illustrations to justify that he doubt the experiences. These examples encompass the deceptions of the evil genius, dreams, and senses.
Hume also illustrates that when a person is introduced to the universe without previous experience, he will not in any way understand the process of cause and effect. Therefore, the life of the newly introduced individual to the world will be an inarticulate string of unconnected events. Hume concludes that inductive reason concerning experience is generated from custom and not from understanding. Our reasoning is not influenced by causation.
On the contrary, Hume’s offer a different concept regarding Cartesian skepticism. As the First Enquiry commences, describing Cartesian skepticism, he asserts,
“It recommends a universal doubt, not only of all our former opinions and principles, but also of our very faculties; of whose veracity, say they, we must assure ourselves, by a chain of reasoning, deduced from some original principle (Hume, and Beauchamp 97).
Hume illustrates that Cartesian skepticism is comprised of three components. In his arguments, he put it clear that a Cartesian doubt can be upraised preceding any reasoning or inquiry. It is thought to entail no grounds whatsoever. The sentiments are contrary to those of Descartes, who contends that some extent of reasoning is necessary to make the doubt going.
Descartes and Hume skeptical arguments are dissimilar. For example, Descartes wants to establish the significance of the foundation for our beliefs, so that we can be certain of our beliefs based on our senses. On the other hand, Hume exemplifies that we lack the reason to come up with conclusions regarding the occurrences of the future or even what happened in the past.
The skeptical arguments of philosophers help us to make philosophical points. Descartes succeed in expressing that the foundation of knowledge defines an individual. He applies skepticism concerning our senses and by this way, he demonstrates that our knowledge, in the long run, depends on God. Hume’s skepticism, on the other hand, focuses on inductive references.
Descartes tries to confront several challenges with his 1st and 2nd Meditations. For instance, in the 1st meditation, Descartes strives to show that some beliefs cannot be possibly false. Moreover, he justifies that there is a criteria for knowledge and that God exists. In the 2nd meditation, the philosopher explains that the mind is distinct from the body.
Hume present the concept of the Cartesian skepticism. He addresses that this form of skepticism has three elements. He believes that the demand that our application of the beliefs to create a faculty can be justified without preceding dependence on that faculty. The second aspect that he outlined was that the demand that this evidence offers satisfaction that the faculty is principled. His final aspect was that the single foundational and self –evident principle formed a foundation for all these proofs.
Whose version do you ultimately think is the most plausible, and why?
The most plausible version is the skeptic argument in the 2nd meditation by Descartes. The dependence of mind on the mind on the brain makes it the most plausible from a particular angle. The continuity and linkage between my thoughts are apparent and that the thoughts are heard first by the body. It is evident that the ideas can exist without a mental substance if the thoughts are heard by the physical element. Additionally, we can embrace the Descartes insight that humans are often mental and that the mental is not similar to physical, without having to the vocal that people as mental elements. The characteristics that constitute the mind are memories and beliefs that the body possess. Therefore, there is no scenario where the mind and body can exclude from the mental properties. Descartes skepticism is the most plausible because it is based on knowledge that is created before our understanding and experiences. The philosophy is centered on deductive reasoning and helps us to understand the existence of a supreme being in the universe.
Descartes response to scepticism is relevant if his scepticism is categorised as consequent variety. Descartes denies that doubt about what we precisely and differently view is psychologically possible. Descartes points that God’s existence is to silence any retroactive claims by launching that the method of precise and distinct notions is self-confirming. Evidently, he believes that such method can be used to justify the existence of an omnipotent God and God’s existence assures that the method is reliable
The elucidation above demonstrates different forms of skepticism. The author of Ecclesiastes expresses unrelenting skepticism throughout the book. The issues raised by the author are directed to people who claim and fight to obtain absolute values in life. Moreover, Hume contends that there lacks the rational basis for believing in the cause and effect, and we should only embrace the custom or habit. Nonetheless, Hume believes that our knowledge is generated from our experiences, and the mind lacks the innate knowledge. On the other hand, Descartes is a rationalist and believes that knowledge is attained before our understanding and experiences.
Work cited
Descartes, René, and John Cottingham. René Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Hume, David, and P J. R. Millican. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.
Hume, David, and Tom L. Beauchamp. An enquiry concerning human understanding: A critical edition. Vol. 3. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Longman, Tremper. The book of Ecclesiastes. Vol. 23. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.
