The philosophical contributions of Rene Descartes remain the cornerstone upon which doubt is built. The subjects of Rene begin when he decides to bring to an end the past conceptions through models of reasoning and intellect. In his analogy of falsehood and misconceptions, the meditator alludes to the past preconceptions as he resolves to recreate the certainty of knowledge by only accepting as truth things that he has proof. It is essential to understand the philosophical analogy that certain things must be made subject to doubt. As he begins to question the rationale that governs his perceptions, he began to think that his senses could be subject to some form of deceit. According to Descartes, such deceit could be attributed to either God or demon (Bennett 45-67). He feels that it might be some dream. He further concluded that his senses were no longer trustworthy on any particular issue. Contrastingly, he notices that he lacked philosophical prudence to question his existence. In this, he reasons that doubting and thinking imply that someone is doing either thinking or doubting. Despite his thoughts of deception on certain things, Rene concluded that his existence is not subject to any element of doubt. Hence, he exists as the body of reasoning and thinking. He asserts that he is an absolutely and certainty a thing that thinks. In his deductions, he says that such fact has come to him by the means of intellect and as such his mind is far known to him than the body.
Consequently, his existence is thus not subject to debate. He further asks himself if there’s anything else that he could know through this method that is sure way of ascertaining the truth. To ascertain that his thoughts and perceptions are not dubitable, he feels that there is the need to be certain that God exists. In doing so, the meditator feels that such idea could not be his creation. He supports such reason by the percept of perfection that is attached to God and reasons that such levels of perfection can only be attributed to God. He deduces that God indeed does exist. Due to the perception and the conclusion that God exists, the meditator feels that such a perfect being cannot deceive him on anything (Bennett 45-67). In this reasoning, the marginal error surfaces not due to deception but by will. The will tends to pass judgment on issues that are not distinctly and clearly understood by the intellect. Through his curiosity, the meditator begins to interrogate material things that he feels are somewhat deceptive and concludes that such false concepts are infused by the demon. In his perception, the primary attributes of the body are breadth, shape as well as size. He also asserts that the primary attribute of the body is often extension. In this thought, he finds solace in the existence of God in allusion to the extension of the body. In his summative analogy, he asserts that if the body is extended, then God essentially exists. In this, the essence of mind thus is thought. He concludes that the mind and the body are clearly distinct things that operate on divergent perceptions. In this sense are meant to help him only to know the world rather than ascertain the truth. In what seems like an imitation of the purgation of Loyola. He approaches thoughts with caution drawing from the fate suffered by Galileo in his attempt to mathematize nature.
Where Descartes goes wrong
There is no question to the power of assertions made by Descartes. However, he presents a series of analogy that assumes a skeptical narrative into the veracity of senses and possible deception that could emanate from it. Taking a close look at the arguments and the premises leading to his deductions, it is clear that he is not as skeptical as he claims. It is unparalleled that senses could be inflicting some deception. The meditator argues that his senses have deceived him on certain things. The argument is somewhat hell-bent and possibly myopic. By recognizing the deception of the senses, he alludes to several things that exist. In his arguments, Descartes asserts that we cannot trust our senses (Bennett 45-67). However, he acknowledges that we can often see our deceptions through the senses. The ironical nature of this assertion implies that it is imprudent to trust the senses. Taking this particular view into account, I think we cannot completely distrust our senses. While it is not correct to trust the senses, we remain adamant that we can trust our senses when we observe some levels of caution. For instance, using the safety rope to climb on a tall building will not always result in failure if certain levels of care are taken. Our senses might deceive us sometimes but not always. Therefore, Descartes’ assertions do not justify the extent and the degree of doubt alleged in the meditation.
Are his goals wrong?
The goals of Descartes are certainly justifiable. It is important to cast doubt on certain issues and perceptions. The goal of Descartes is to use methodological reason to ascertain the truth. However, there is no harm in ascertaining the truth about certain things. In fact, there is a lot of deception that is characterized perception. Therefore, it is important to formulate a methodological mannerism to reason and ascertain the truth. Though the parameter of what can be considered truth or illusion is still subject to debate, having a method of filtering truth based on your analogy is still critical to the existence and validation of truth (Bennett 45-67). For instance, the arguments around the dreams and wake states are to a great extent sensible. There is always something that could elicit thoughts and imaginations when it comes to dreams. Dreams bring the sense of the reality of what mind conceived in reality. There is often the element of reality on what we dream about thus it is important to have some models of ascertaining whether dreams are true and to what extent they hold they hold substance. It is thus true that the goals Descartes is trying to achieve are right and to a great extent justifiable. Taking into account the plethora of issues that Descartes raise and cast skepticism, it is important to note that certainty is necessary to make deductions (Campbell 5-17).
Is he wrong to try to accomplish those goals in the ways he does?
It is critical to understand that using a methodical reasoning to ascertain truth cannot be wrong in any way. However, the premises used in doing so might be critical be skeptical to some extent. The use of reason to validate the veracity of perceptions qualifies as a philosophical mannerism of reaching deductions. It is critical to understand that perceptions are governed by the mindset and senses. Sensibility is thus a form logic that determines a given substance in an issue (Campbell 5-17). It does not matter the extent to which one goes in a bid to acquire knowledge or justify it. The important thing is the premises used in justifying such actions. As evident in Descartes’ arguments, his methods of verifying truth in meditation is still substantive. The use of material things in arguing a course is relevant to human context and understanding thus justifiable.
How might Descartes respond to your criticism?
Descartes did not consider his critics to use philosophical arguments to critic his flawed arguments on skepticism, evil and the ideology of senses. As such, he would dismiss the criticism as mere illusions meant to draw his attention to my existence (Campbell 5-17). Considering his writing to the critics, it is clear that he regarded his critics as people who did not have the feat to challenge his philosophy but rather people who lacked the sharpness and moral authority to do so. He would thus demand that I consider the premises that are leading to the deductions before making any criticism. However, taking into account the premises, there are obvious flaws that continue to rock his philosophy as his view is not the ultimate truth.
Even if he is wrong, is there any value in Descartes philosophy?
There is absolute substance in Descartes’ arguments. The mind is often occupied with several thoughts regarding nature, and all those thoughts cannot be true. Therefore, it is critical to devising an acceptable methodical way of reaching a given conclusion. As asserted by the meditator, absolute certainty is critical to answering the critics as he has a plethora of things he had not subjected to doubt but only accepted them as they were (Campbell 5-17). In his view, everything he knew certainly came through the precepts of the mind and the senses. He inserts the process of doubt that is considered methodological to withdraw completely from the senses.
Work Cited
Bennett, Jonathan. "Objections to the Meditations and Descartes’s Replies." Rene Descartes (2010-2015): 45-67. Web. <http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/descartes1642_3.pdf>.
Campbell, Michael. "Time, Causality and Character in Descartes' Meditation." Descartes' Meditations (2014): 5-17. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia24/parrhesia24_campbell.pdf>.
