Philosophy 101 Unit 1

I may not personally agree with Descartes’ assertion that the only existence it is possible to validate is one’s own, but I understand the logic he uses. The methodological doubt is something I can follow. When the man branches off and the idea arises that animals can only been very complex automata, it is a somewhat logical progression. The fact that it is rational for other human beings to have thought, and therefore be able to validate their own existence by virtue of their thought, makes a whole lot of sense as well. However, following the absolutely integral notion that the only sure thing Descartes has, the one single Archimedean Point he can find, is that every bit of information he takes in with his senses could possibly be falsified by the Grand Deceiver, the Evil Genius, the malevolent parallel of a benevolent God. I mean, these assessments follow sound logic as far as I see it, but Descartes does not seem to be so inconsistent as to move forward conditionally with his philosophy. Even with a deceiver that is far less powerful than God it would be plausible for a man to make an error in judgment leading to false conclusions about what around him is an automaton and what around him is a thinking thing, able to confirm its own existence. I just see the whole exercise as one of futility after the entire progression of doubt, casting down senses and experience and even rational thought. Methodological doubt invalidates the surety of experience in the moment; I say that if each moment is doubtable, then the summation thereof has to be doubtable as well. Just like integration of a function over a continuous interval, the most miniscule of parts come together to form the whole. This whole is of the same nature as each of the parts. Hence, a bank of experience drawn from an infinite number of doubtable moments is necessarily doubtable. Descartes’ logic is shaky enough in my mind to begin with, and his own abandonment of his methodology casts considerable doubt on the whole system itself.

Descarte used a piece of wax as an example of what is failing our senses. Or how they can decieve us. He says “Perhaps the wax was what i now think it is: namely that the wax itself never really was the sweetness of the honey, nor the fragrance of the flowers…but instead was a body that a short time ago minfested itself to me in these ways and now does so in other ways.” But what more are we than that wax? we take on what is around us, the culture, the language, the sights, sounds, and smells. Each one of us has been molded, shaped, and contorted by the society we live, or have lived in. So how impossible is the task that Descarte attempted to take on? How can we just let go of every thing that has created us. We are nothing more than a compilation of others thoughts and opinions. Even if you claim to “not follow the crowd” you still have allowed them to manipulate your being. It is impossible for us to be like the wax in the way that, just being completely melted and losing all that was put into us. Now we may attempt to ignore, or forget our past, but noone can argue that their past experiences have shaped us to be what we are. The only thing we have that we can actually manipulate at all is the present. But what decisions can we make that can later be remade? What beliefs can we stand on now that we can’t later doubt? The idea that the only thing we can truly stand on is the fact that we ourselves can verify solely our very own existance is terrifying. There is nothing that you can build off that. I am existing because I think I am? Its hard for me to comprehend the fact that my very soul could be just a figment of my imagination. The only thing that can keep me at peace is the fact that I can stand solidly on my faith. Be it wrong faith or right faith, I refuse to question. If that makes me a lesser person so be it, but it makes me a being with something to look forward to. Regardless if what I’m looking towards is a giant mirage, I’m still able to base it on a solid belief on something that matters to me. If for a second anyone believes that their faith is above mine, or below mine, they are correct. For its not the object that we base our faith on, its the notion that there is something to base it on, be it God, or Buddah, or your kitchen sink for all I care. Its something that means you have that choice. Which making that choice is what makes us human. Even if we are being decieved.

I’ll begin by saying that my first impression of Descartes’ first meditation is that he has a rather pessimistic outlook on his life.  He seems very intent on throwing everything into doubt, including his new opinions that he built after “[razing] everything to the ground and [beginning] again from the original foundations,” in other words, developing new opinions and beliefs.  Now I understand and agree, for that matter, that it is important to live an examined life, and to question things.  .  However, doubting something does not mean it is entirely false, along the lines of “innocent until proven guilty.”  We should doubt and question things, including our own core beliefs, but we should do so reasonably.  Honestly, I think Descartes takes it a little too far; for instance, towards the end of the passage he mentions believing in some supreme evil power rather than a divine power, solely because of some doubt.  It seems unnecessarily introspective to believe that the devil is trying to trick us with everything and everyone we see.  Indeed senses can be deceiving, but I trust my senses at least a little bit more than that.  Descartes says that “it is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once.”  Again, I don’t agree (or “assent” as Descartes says).  While we can fool ourselves into seeing things that aren’t there, does that mean we can’t trust ourselves, that we can’t grow and learn to change things about ourselves so that we can perceive things as the really are?  I believe we can.  Also, the idea of believing in an evil power rather than a divine power is just very unsettling.  If that is indeed the case, then we are simply beings in a world full of illusions and then we die.  What the hell is that?  Really, if I accepted that like Descartes did, I probably wouldn’t be spending my time writing, I’d be killing myself.  So why does Descartes write?  If everything is illusion, then surely even his hopes of informing the uninformed about his meditations are just as unnatainable as anything else in a false world that is, on the surface, real.  I see a contradiction here.  Without hope, it seems like all is lost.  Many of us are not really happy with our lives exactly as they are now; we may want to change little things, or we may want to change big things.  Thus, I believe the biggest reason we wake up in the morning is because we believe that there is some way we can make changes in our lives for the better.  We have hope, regardless of uncertainty, and that is what is important.