Friday, October 12, 2018
The Chicken -- Or the Egg?
Philosophers have long wondered about how to justify beliefs and hence establish knowledge. Do you start with a method or principle that you use to determine which beliefs are justified OR do you start with examples of justified belief to determine which method or principle confers justification? Descartes chooses the latter option. From his two example of knowledge (i.e. I know I exist and I know I am a thing that thinks) he establishes his rule about clear and distinct perceptions. Is this the right strategy or should he start with a rule or procedure? Is that the right strategy but a problematic implementation? Does he have enough examples of justified belief to establish the rule? Or is either strategy a dead end?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Descartes’ strategy of systematic doubt to find certainties to build the foundations of his belief is a better strategy than starting with a rule; however, it is not sufficient and cannot produce the results he seeks. Descartes’ method is only better because the other idea is much more flawed. If he started with one standard with which he could measure whether his beliefs were justified or not, he would need to use the beliefs he already has, but hasn’t proven, to come up with this rule. Therefore, he could not know if his reasoning or intellect that went into the development of the rule was valid, and it would not be an effective tool for him to establish certain knowledge. Additionally, this strategy requires that Descartes evaluate each and every belief he holds in order to verify that they’re true. With the second strategy, “Nor therefore need I survey each opinion individually; a task that would be endless. Rather, because undermining the foundations will cause whatever has been built upon them to crumble of its own accord, I will attack straightaway those principles which supported everything I once believed” (14). When searching for knowledge with which he can use to rebuild his foundations, he comes up with “I exist,” and “I am a thinking thing.” Assuming these are justified beliefs, they are still not sufficient to justify the clear and distinct rule, which is part of his proof of god’s existence that employs circular reasoning. Since he cannot soundly prove the clear and distinct rule, it’s ineffective in determining what he considers to be true knowledge. With only the two beliefs he has proven, he cannot progress in any direction with his strategy, and it is therefore an unsuccessful method.
ReplyDeleteDescartes’ strategy of starting with doubting everything in orderto go on and justify beliefs, is a logical way to go about proving that we do indeed know things, but his application of this new “knowledge” is where things go wrong. In his meditations, Descartes walks through several of skepticisms attempts at proving we can know nothing. He takes on this idea and ends up using it to help him create actually justifiable truths. Rather than hold on to old ideas he believed to be true, he vowed to “attack straightaway those principles which supported everything [he] once believed” (14), in order to build a new foundation of knowledge that can be justified. Following foundationalism, Descartes then goes on to take his two “foundational” beliefs of knowing that he exists and is a thinking thing, two beliefs that he has proven to always be true or where impossible to doubt their truth, and attempts to use these ideas to establish what can qualify as knowledge. This is where things go wrong. After taking these examples of justified beliefs, he determines that in order for a premise to be justified it must be perceived clearly and distinctly in the mind. He goes on to reason that if a thought is clear and distinct then it must be true, and we cannot doubt it. However, this leads to problems of its own with the Cartesian circle (God’s existence is needed for something to be perceived as clear and distinct, but needing to be able to perceive clearly and distinctly to know God’s existence), but that is not the only problem with this argument. It does not take into account the person doing the thinking. Someone not as wise and worldly as Descartes himself might clearly and distinctly believe something in their own mind, that is completely false. Therefore, the subjectivity of one’s mind cannot be included in what determines justified knowledge. If he left his definition as a widely held idea that can never be doubted, he would have a much more accommodating explanation, but because he does not, his definition simply does not work. His method is definitely on the right path, but the step between an undeniable foundational belief is what leads to problems with clear and distinct ideas and the Cartesian circle, which is definitely a dead end.
ReplyDelete