Monday, October 3, 2011
When the Walls Come Tumbling Down
Descartes realizes that some of the beliefs he thought were true turned out to be false. In the pursuit of knowledge he seeks to tear down his previous beliefs and build them up again upon a firm foundation. In other words, he is engaged in a foundational project, searching for a class of beliefs that themselves are not in need of justification in order to justify his other beliefs. But is this quest a misguided one? Do such beliefs exist? If not, does that mean that knowledge is impossible? Or is there some other way to justify our beliefs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that Descartes’ approach to finding knowledge through his foundational project is impossible. This is because he needs to justify all of his beliefs using other beliefs, and these beliefs need to be justified with other beliefs and so on. I feel that although it is his goal to find a set of beliefs that need to justification, this is impossible. For example, Descartes’ Cogito argument is his foundational belief. However, even in this argument he neglects to address questions that arise as to how we knows that his premises need no justification. For example, how does he know he “thinks” he exists? What does it mean to think? What is thinking? How do we perceive ourselves to be thinking? How do we know we are thinking? Therefore, it is impossible to reach any type of conclusion because it would require an infinite amount of justifications. Moreover, I find that often the foundational project leads to many circular arguments and unreliable conclusions. In attempt to move forward in his pursuit for knowledge, I feel as though Descartes draws very large, general conclusions, based off specific, particular examples. This in itself leads to many flawed arguments and conclusions. While I do believe that it is impossible to find knowledge through the foundational project, I do not feel that knowledge is impossible. Maybe, an alternative technique is to believe everything to be true until proven 100% false. If there is anyway that a belief can be proven true, then we must regard it as true. Therefore, beliefs that are 100% of the time false, such as “a pig is flying in the sky right now”, are the only beliefs considered to be false knowledge. While this is completely opposite to Descartes skeptical approach, it may lead to promising results.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Annie has said for the most part. Descartes' Cogito argument works off a premise that cannot be easily defined; how can I be sure I am something when I do not clearly and distinctly perceive what it is? Does this mean I have no knowledge of what it means to exist? If not, would that not remove the foundation from under Descartes' foundational belief? The idea that in order to prove I exist, whatever that means, that I must be able to think I exist is also troubling to me; a while back when returning to consciousness from a sleeper-hold I found myself regaining my senses over what seemed like a fairly long period of time (in reality I had no perception of time). In the earliest stages there was only thought, though as "time" progressed tried to control my thought. This proved to be futile, much like trying to move a limb that is fully asleep; you send the signal, but the limb, or in my case the mind, does not respond. I bring this up because during this incident, while my mind observed what seemed to be thought, I could not control it, and I could not think "I exist". Does this mean that in the early stages, when I could not even attempt to control my thinking, but could only observe my thoughts, that I may have stopped existing? The idea that thought can be separate from consciousness is also an interesting one, and may have some significance when looking at Descartes' belief that some ideas, such as the idea of god, are inherently present in the mind.
ReplyDeleteI do disagree with Annie's assertion that anything could be proven 100% false. If her premise that nothing can be proven to be absolutely true is accepted, then is that not a truth? Also, if something is 100% false, then to say that that something is 100% false would also be a truth. My proposal would be that there can never be absolute truth, but there could be relative truth. From a limited perspective things may appear to be true, and for purposes in that perspective they act as if they are absolute truths. When the perspective is changed, however, what appeared to be truth no longer seems accurate. For a crude example, imagine a sheet of glass; it appears and looks smooth, and from the perspective our senses offer it is. When looked at on an atomic level, on a perspective we can imagine but not readily observe, it would appear extremely rough. What I am saying is that having universal foundational beliefs is problematic because beliefs that are foundational change with the perspective with which they are considered in.