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.