Descartes Account of What Is Necessary for Knowledge - Essay Example

Descartes account of what is necessary for knowledge and what is sufficient for knowledge does not make sense Date Rene Descartes was a French philosopher, mathematician and scientist who lived between 1596 and 1650. Often called the father of modern philosophy, Descartes introduced a shift in thinking from the empiricist school of thought in which people believed all knowledge ultimately comes to us through our senses to the rationalist school of thought in which it was believed that human reason was the source for all human knowledge. Through this development in thought, he was also the founder of modern day mathematics and provided the framework for study of the natural sciences. In developing these ideas, Descartes wrote several books regarding the nature of existence and knowledge, providing us with plenty of material to study and has had tremendous influence on those who have come after him. One of his most often quoted statements is “I think, therefore I am” which was published in his book entitled “Discourse on Method,” which was first published in 1637. By studying the writings that led up to this concept as expressed in “Discourse on Method” and comparing them with further attempts to refine this idea within “Meditations on First Philosophy,” one begins to conclude that Descartes’ account of what is necessary and what is sufficient for knowledge does not make sense. This simple-sounding statement of “I think, therefore I am” is the result of a discourse in which Descartes calls into question all of the assumptions he’s come to know as a result of the philosophical thought of his day. “I had long before remarked that … it is sometimes necessary to adopt, as if above doubt, opinions which we discern to be highly uncertain” (Descartes, 2001). To seek a higher version of the truth, Descartes felt it was necessary to question every assumption that had even the shadow of a doubt. Through this questioning process, he demonstrates how thought, not observation is really the right foundation for knowledge. “When I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams” (Descartes, 2001). His idea of discovering truths about the world was defined by whether he had a clear and distinct perception of them and that was sufficient for knowledge. However, the idea that knowledge can be defined by a “clear and distinct perception” is foiled by its own dependence on the senses. Descartes argues his way out of this idea by indicating that in order to fool a mind, a mind must first exist. “But there is I know not what being, who is possessed at once of the highest power and the deepest cunning, who is constantly employing all his ingenuity in deceiving me. Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something” (Descartes, 1989). Regardless of the way in which it’s presented, though, there is a hole in the logic that states thought instead of the senses is the basis for truth while the evidence of correct thought is a clear and distinct sense that what is thought is correct. In his arguments regarding the nature and existence of God, Descartes goes on to say that it does not matter whether we are dreaming or not because whatever our intellect tells us is true is, in fact, true. This directly contradicts what he said earlier regarding dreams being little more than impressions that did not exist and did not necessarily represent what was true. Therefore, in pursuing a definition of the truth, Descartes came around full circle. From denying the existence of everything that had the shadow of a doubt, including everything known through the senses and seemingly intuitively, he argued his way through the idea that thought completely separated from sense was the necessary basis for knowledge and that the only correct thought was thought that carried with it the sense that it was clear and distinct. Through the meditations included in “Meditations on First Philosophy,” Descartes presents his logical sequence leading to the idea that since God exists, all knowledge must come from him and therefore, whether we are dreaming or awake, our perceptions of our reality must be real. It’s a self-contradicting circle that simply doesn’t make sense when taken in its entirety. References Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. John Veitch. New York: Prometheus Books, 1989. Descartes, René. Discourse on Method. Vol. XXXIV, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/34/1/. [23 January, 2006]. Read More