Analysis Of Rene Descartes First Meditation

Rene Descartes believes we should be skeptical of our sense perceptions. He is a rationalist and believes we are born with innate ideas. Although others are imperialist, like John Locke, who oppose this idea and state that all knowledge is based from sense perceptions. Through Descartes’ “First Meditation” he goes through a line of reasoning with three key arguments. There is an objection to Descartes argument that innate ideas can be unaware of. Descartes’ argues that one has to be skeptical of one’s sensory experiences. This is due to knowledge based on sensory perception is only based on the senses. He claims that we must not trust our senses, “But it is sometimes proved to me that these sense are deceptive, and it is wiser not to trust …show more content…
These thoughts are then not true. This evil deceiver could be putting perceptions in our head, what we believe, what we think, everything we believe to be true. This evil deceiver has to be taken into consideration, therefore, everything we know must be thrown out. Including, mathematics and God. What seems to be left is self, “‘I am, I exist’” (Descartes). In other words, I think, therefore I am. The subject is doing the thinking, so it must have consciousness. This self-conscious is then a necessary truth. Although a evil deceiver has to be considered to find necessary truths, Descartes claims there is no such evil deceiver. There is only a infinite all good God. Since there is an all good God, this God would not try to deceiver us. Thus, Mathematical statements can be concluded as an necessary truth again because there is no evil deceiver deceiving us. Descartes comes back to the conclusion that I, God, and mathematics are necessary truths. Due to them being necessary truths, they must be innate ideas. Self perceptions are allowed back, with carful consideration and multiple cautions. All other sciences and imperial ideas are allowed back in to …show more content…
If everyone had these innate ideas, then these they should be known by everyone. It seems that, “it is evident that all children and idiots have not the least apprehension or thought of them” (Locke). Children, people with disabilities, and people from other cultures according to Descartes would have these identical innate thoughts, although evidence shows that they do not. Descartes could respond that everyone has these innate ideas, but are not consciously aware of them. Locke states, “it seeming to me near a contradiction to say that there are truths imprinted on the soul, which it perceives or understand not” (Locke). It does not make sense that innate ideas could be imprinted, but be not consciously aware of. Due to if there are impressions on the mind, they must be unavoidably able to perceive them and know these truths. It seems children don’t come into the world knowing mathematical equations and there is no universal agreement on the concept of God. This points even more towards the claim that there are no innate ideas. A response from Descartes could be that there is a lack of language abilities to articulate these innate truths. This may be true, but there is still a problem of innate ideas being in the unconscious and needing self reelecting or teaching to get them into the conscious. There is no clear distinction