Descartes Skepticism
The philosophy of Descartes, usually called Cartesianism, is summarized in Discourse, in a more complete form - in the "Reflections" on First Philosophy (Meditationes de prima philosophia in qua Dei existentia et Animae immortalitas demonstratur, 1641, second edition with Objectiones Septimae, 1642, the Paris edition in French, with corrections Descartes in 1647) and from a different point of view in the "first principles of philosophy" (Principia philosophiae, 1644, a French translation in 1647).
Sensory experience is not able to give reliable knowledge, because we are often faced with the illusions and hallucinations. In addition, the reasoning is deducing conclusions from the premises, and as long as we have no reliable assumptions, we cannot rely on the accuracy of the findings.
Skepticism, of course, existed before Descartes, and these arguments were known to the Greeks. There were different answers to the skeptical objections. However, Descartes first proposed the use of skepticism as a research tool. His skepticism is not a doctrine but a method. After Descartes, philosophers, scientists and historians has spread cautious attitude towards ill-founded ideas not depending on their source: authority, tradition or the personal characteristics of voicing their rights.
Methodological skepticism thus forms only the first step. Descartes believed that if we knew absolutely certain first principles, then we could deduce from them all other knowledge. Therefore the search for reliable knowledge of the second stage of his philosophy. The accuracy of Descartes discovers only in the knowledge of his own existence: cogito, ergo sum («I think, therefore I am"). Descartes says: I have no certain knowledge of the existence of my body, because I could be an animal or spirit left the body, dreaming that he is a man; but my mind, in my experience, there are certainly and reliably. If, however, I doubt that thought, at least significantly that I doubt.
Contrary to expectations, Descartes does not use his valid argument as the major premise of deductive inference, and to obtain new findings; thesis it is necessary to say that since we got this truth, not by the senses or deduction from other truths, then there must be a method that allowed us to get it. This, says Descartes, the method clear and distinct ideas.
At this point, Descartes stops to point out a gap in his argument and try to make up for it. Right for us, calling clear and distinct that offers us as such a powerful but evil creature (genius malignus), which is a pleasure to mislead us? Probably, as well; and yet we are not mistaken in respect of its own existence, in this we will not disappoint even the "all-powerful deceiver." However, the two omnipotent beings cannot be, and therefore, if there is an omnipotent and good God, the possibility of fraud is excluded.
Pascal’s Skepticism
Outstanding participant of the scientific revolution of the XVII century, developing skeptical ideas was Blaise Pascal deepening the idea of Sanchez, he argued that "the visible world - barely discernible dash in the vast bosom of nature," which is inexhaustible and "compressed boundaries atom: innumerable universes in the atom and each - their firmament, its planets and their own Earth. and .. on this earth their animals, which again can be shared, not knowing rest and life. "World - it is infinite in depth and infinite depth. Besides, he always existed before us and will exist for ever after us. The knowledge that there will always be finite, can never reach the two infinity and eternity of the two. In addition, in the world, "there is nothing immutable", all constantly changes. How to capture the network of knowledge constantly changing and successive objects that make up the world?
In addition, "all parts of the world are in the intermeshing, in such a connection," that each of them depends on all the "others, and all of them - from her. Each object is an infinite number of connections. But can you finish the study of the infinite number of connections, walk to the end that no end has not?
No science will ever run out of your subject, for "the length of the field, the study of each science, infinite." Exclusively appreciating the power and importance of mind, believing that the ability to think - the essence of man, that "thinking - the greatness of man," Pascal, however, rejects three positions, which play an important role in the philosophy of Descartes: the existence of innate ideas, their absolute truth and possibility of deducing from them the principles of life, and out of them - all the general knowledge (so that the experience is useful only to test some inferences). After all, according to Descartes, the knowledge delivered intuition and deduction, "so authentic that even experience has shown the opposite," it is necessary "to give the mind more faith." Pascal believes that experience not only helps to verify the truths established without him, but also opens up new truths, unknown to him. In addition, according to Pascal, absolute certainty, the infallibility of our knowledge cannot have: first, because of the infinite set of complexities and interdependencies incessant changes undergone by all the objects that make up our world is knowable; secondly, because of the imperfection of knowledge tools. At the same time, of course, tools of knowledge are constantly being improved, and the range available to our observation of phenomena can in this respect be expanded infinitely. But always, at any stage of the development of knowledge produced by people about the world would be incomplete.
There are areas, says this philosopher, where the problem of knowledge is not asking what nobody knew before, and what is written in certain books (containing the knowledge of what was known to their authors for a long time) is the history, geography and features - theology. Mathematics and science as "have the task of search and discovery of hitherto hidden truths." Mathematics and all the natural sciences "are subject to experience and reasoning."
Denying achievable way to guarantee absolute truth brought by them with the knowledge, Pascal believes that strict adherence to the logic of the argument (hereinafter referred to them "by geometry") is a method, though imperfect, but the closest to perfect. "The fact that more than geometry, he says, is superior to us." Our knowledge of nature entirely rest on the reasoning mind, and in doing so he always comes from experience. "The amount of experience, bringing us to an understanding of nature, continually increasing, and, as these experiences - the only basis of physics, in proportion to the increase in the number of experiments increases the amount of output from the consequences of it." All the knowledge that is available in areas such as theology, presented in the books. And the fact that they contain nothing can be added. Knowledge that can be extracted in these areas, as limited as the books in which they are contained in the same disciplines of natural science and math books are not investigated, and the nature of the objects themselves. "In this kind of comprehension items our mind has unlimited freedom, his inexhaustible fertility continually creates, and his discoveries that can be made continuously, cannot be the end." Thus both experience and intelligence allow our knowledge about the world and to expand infinitely refined. Man keeps in mind and the knowledge that he himself managed to get, and those which he was given the last generation left their books: " not only one of them (the people) Day-to-day advances in the sciences forward, but all the people together to make unceasing progress of science. "
Truth Pascal likens tiny point. Even when aiming, we get into it, then at the same time point (true), as it were exciting part of the surrounding surface (delusion). In other words, with irrefutable true knowledge in our knowledge of the world contain errors, from which then it is difficult and sometimes impossible to get rid of. In our knowledge, says Pascal, "all kind of true and partially not. This is not true: it is absolutely pure and unadulterated true. Admixture false spots and destroys it." It is in our knowledge, "there is nothing true unadulterated, if we understand the true unadulterated truth." This is the meaning frequently found in Pascal's remarks that the truth is not available to us.
Absurd arrogance dogmatists who imagine that we have or can have the omniscient, infallible knowledge, and equally absurd assertion that our destiny - the absolute ignorance of the truth. "Clarify just what we are: something, but not all." That "something" is infinitesimal compared to "all", but it is still nothing but a certain piece of nature. And if, as expressed by this thinker, "our knowledge occupy among all that is subject to the knowledge of such a place, which our bodies take in the extent of nature," it is clear that this knowledge - not piling up errors and some, albeit extremely a small, complete and accurate knowledge about the world.
Skeptics, to identify shortcomings of our knowledge, not a weakness is detected, and the power of the human mind and its ability to self-criticism. One of the most prominent and influential skeptical minds of the XVII century was Pierre Bayle (1647-1706). "You can teach the most ignorant people can be persuaded most incredulous, "but you cannot, I will not say to convince a skeptic, but right reason to oppose it, it is impossible to oppose him evidence that would not be sophistry." In Bayle, like Kastelliona, skepticism is widely used to fight against the persecution of people for dissent - the struggle which he throughout his life gave most of their forces. As in Pascal's skepticism of this thinker combined with a very high estimation of mind. But, firstly, unlike Pascal, who denied the existence of innate ideas, Beyle their existence claims. Second, Pascal sure that the truth of reason, though different from the truths of faith, but it is compatible with them; Bayle also takes the opposite position. The idea of "natural light", i.e. directly, intuitive data irrefutably true provisions are innate, by Bailey, to all people. "Daylight" is the original and universal rule of judgment and discernment of true and false, good and bad, "usually precedes all others, including the revelation that was obvious in the Scriptures:" The doctrine preached to us as he came down from heaven, should be considered the second rule, referring to the original rule," i.e., "natural light "that cannot be anything else than a "universal mind, illuminating the minds of all."
Works Cited
Popkin, R. H. "The History of Skepticism from Erasmus to Descartes (rev. ed. 1968); C. L. Stough, Greek Skepticism (1969); M. Burnyeat, ed., The Skeptical Tradition (1983); B. Stroud, The Significance of Philosophical Skepticism (1984)". Encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com.
"Philosophical skepticism should be distinguished from ordinary skepticism, where doubts are raised against certain beliefs or types of beliefs because the evidence for the particular belief or type of belief is weak or lacking " skepdic.com
Butchvarov, Panayot, Skepticism About the External World (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, R.G. Bury (trans.), Prometheus Books, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933.
Myles Burnyeat (ed.), The Skeptical Tradition, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
