Explain Descartes theory in relation to doubt and evaluate his rationalism - Essay Example

Descartes and Rationalism Theory Affiliation Descartes and Rationalism Theory The Descartes project or the project of inquiry captures the general argument from Descartes. He asserts that it is paramount for an individual to examine grounds that exist, for the purpose of the various things that people believe in entirely complete autonomy from the practical considerations hence making it necessary for one to understand and accept the many propositions (Clemenson 2007, p.78). Descartes begins by taking everything seriously and considering the immediate environment.

The project focuses on the meditations that are illustrations of Descartes effort to overcome skepticism through showing whether if one proceeds to consider matters systematically and the truths that one cannot doubt. Descartes uses a method of doubt and method analysis to ascertain the hypothesis. The doubt method involves the act of creating and posing strong and skeptical hypotheses that ultimately call into the doubt classes of the claims of knowledge. Cartesian doubt method normally gives more details regarding the method.

Under normal circumstances, determination of the classes take place through three facilities that Descartes hold and that might come to understand things, senses, imagination and ultimately understanding or reason(Clemenson 2007,p.78).Having eliminated all the truths that emanating from senses and imagination, many of such things that come in the mind will finally emanate from reasoning. Therefore, Descartes concludes that it is not possible to fall under deception of thinking that he does not exist when in real sense he exists (Clemenson, 2007, p.56). Therefore, unless something existed, there would be nothing that one can deceive.

Therefore, this a truth found with absolute certainty. The Descartes method has appealed many philosophers through finding certain foundation where one can base all the claims. The ability to sustain test of time and crucible foundation has made it endure well throughout the twentieth century. However, there are some philosopher who has challenged the theory affirming that it has critical problems of incoherence and skeptical hypotheses.On the other hand, rationalism is a view that takes reason as the main test and source of knowledge.

It also backs any view that supports reason as a source of justification. In terms of formal and acceptable definition, rationalism is the methodology of truth where the truth does not depend on the sensory system; rather it depends on the intellectual and deductive reasoning. The rationalists believe in reality and have intrinsically structures of logic (Müller 2004, p.48). Therefore, rationalists posit that where truth exists it is possible to capture these truths.Taking into account the rationalism approach, Descartes project has some fallacies or logical inconsistencies because senses cannot verify the truth.

As posited above, rationalism approach affirms that it is not possible to relate reason and senses. Senses are intrinsic abilities while reason is external and therefore, it is not possible to associate the two aspects. For instance, Descartes affirms that he cannot doubt the presence of God because the senses agree that. However, in terms of rationalism, the intellectuals dispute the presence of God (Müller2004, p.44). According to rationalism, the absolute truth is prone to intellectual substantiation the fact that is not possible when it comes to verification of the presence of God.

Descartes and his project is erroneous because one cannot rely on senses to tell the truth. However, there is truth in some cases especially in ascertaining the presence of God. Just as ones, presence is not disputable even through rationalist approach; it is the same thing that Descartes explains s the presence of God.ReferencesClemenson, D. (2007). Descartes theory of ideas. Bloomsbury Academic.Müller, H. (2004). Arguing, bargaining and all that: communicative action, rationalist theory and the logic of appropriateness in international relations.

European journal of international relations, 10(3), 395-435.