1. In the Meditations, Descartes makes a clean sweep of his beliefs and begins again. Explain Descartes’ critical application of his method of doubt and the way he builds knowledge on a new foundation. Can Descartes’ rationalist account of knowledge of external objects withstand the criticisms of Locke’s empiricism? In the end, which epistemological account is more plausible, Descartes’ rationalism or Locke’s empiricist account? Explain. (70 marks)
The critical application of Descartes' method of doubt puts all ideas or beliefs into doubt in order to establish a new grounds for reasoning. He begins with skepticism, but attempts to overcome it. This includes doubt of everything from social or cultural beliefs to basic perceptions. In presenting this skepticism, he attempts to discover principles that are able to overcome this doubt. This allows him to build knowledge on a new foundation by through the development of principles that can he can be certain of. In allowing himself to doubt everything that he knows he is able to overcome any false assumptions that he might have. Anything that is able to overcome his basic criteria for truth becomes essential knowledge that extends beyond doubt. He essentially demonstrates in his arguments that human experiences can be deceiving. He overcomes this basic level of doubt by arguing that because he is able to doubt in the first place he himself must exist. The fact that he is able to have any sort of thought demonstrates that there must be an entity that is having the experiences. This demonstrates the first principle upon which he is able to develop the rest of his philosophy.
The argument that Descartes develops regarding the existence and capacity for knowledge of external objects is rooted in his conception of God. If Descartes himself exists and he is able to conceive of a perfect being, such as God, then that being must exist, due to the fact that in order to be perfect it would have to exist. The use of the ontological argument therefore precludes his notion of objects. Descartes' rationalist account of knowledge of external objects is not able to withstand the criticisms of Locke's empiricism. He argues that due to the fact that God, if perfect, would not be a deceiver, then the objects that he senses must exist. They contain their essential properties and the sense are able to perceive them due to this. Locke's empiricism argues that knowledge itself comes from experience. This experience is the most fundamental aspect that leads to understanding in his idea of knowledge. In this conception there can be no innate ideas. Instead, knowledge is attained through the various experiences that a person has throughout their lives. This is in direct contradiction to Descartes' need for an innate knowledge of God.
Between Locke's empiricism and Descartes' rationalism, the more plausible epistemological account is Lock's empiricism. Descartes' rationalism is predicated on a need for innate knowledge and a basic conception of ideas upon birth. Locke, however, demonstrates that this is not necessary and the experiences that people have throughout their lives allow them to gain an understanding of the world around them. This common sense approach is more simple and does not require that there be a God that ensures that knowledge and experiences are not deceptive. Instead, according to Locke, we can be sure of knowledge simply due to the senses themselves. The sense themselves, and the subjective experiences that can be derived from them, are the root of knowledge. The main difference between the principles that are presented by these two thinkers is that Descartes' rationalist approach was based in the notion that knowledge can be obtained through pure reason. Locke, on the other hand, maintains that there is a need for experience in order for knowledge to be obtained. Locke's approach is therefore predicated on the principles of scientific inquiry. His empirical approach demonstrates a fundamentally different conception of how reality is established. Reflecting on sensory experiences that have been obtained demonstrates a more plausible approach than that presented by Descartes (Theory of Knowledge, 2016).
2. In your own words, concisely state the problem of induction as formulated in our course readings by either David Hume or Bertrand Russell. Explain why it is especially problematic for empiricist accounts of knowledge. Should it be considered a serious problem? Explain why or why not. (30 marks)
The problem of induction according to Hume is that there is no way to justify the principles upon which these arguments are based. Hume argued that human beings had a natural tendency to use experiences and perceptions in order to develop our future beliefs and come to conclusions about events that have not yet occurred. Hume essentially questions the foundations of this belief. The use of inference is developed in notions of sampling, which assume that events that have occurred in a specific way in the past will continue to do so in the future. This means that this form of knowledge will never be able to be established on a specific basis of truth or falsity. The basic structures upon which induction is built demonstrates an inherent problem in relation to the subjective nature of the reality that is presented by the use of its principles. There is no way to know for sure if the claims made in this regard are going to happen for sure. Instead, induction can only make an individual reasonably sure that the information that they have is reliable.
This is especially problematic for empiricist accounts of knowledge because there is no way to deductively prove tat induction is reliable. This is due to the fact that it relies on experiential knowledge, which is fundamentally subjective. This means that knowledge becomes something of the majority while those with the minorities essentially become insane. The principles that induction is based upon present major challenges to the capacity of rational inquiry to present certain results in regards to the justifiably of the notions that are presented. This is essentially the argument that events or experiences that occurred in the past due not have any baring on those that occur in the future. The correlation between the claims that are made and the actual events that transpire have no basis in the rational notion of knowledge that is presented in relation to knowledge that is justifiable. The use of inductive reasoning presents a need for causality. The challenge in this sense, therefore, becomes similar to that of the rationalist, which requires the development of first principles in order to have an effective basis for the rationale behind their arguments.
This should be considered a serious problem because it presents a major challenge to the establishment of principles upon which knowledge can be ensured. The basic structures upon which our understanding of the world is built are made more difficult to consider due to the issues that have been presented. Something that has never been proven in the past cannot be said to be able to be proven in the present either in a deductive or inductive way. This challenges the certainty of the knowledge that is obtained. Connecting events that happened in the past in a reliable way with those that may or may not occur in the future therefore presents a major issue in relation to this form of thought. Essentially, due to the fact that nature is, intrinsically, nonuniform and forever changing there is no way to be certain of causation. This is the idea that one event naturally follows another. According to Hume, all that anybody can really be sure of is that the events transpired in some associated way (Theory of Knowledge, 2016).
References
“The Theory of Knowledge.” (2016). Introduction to Philosophy.
