Descartes Argument Against Sense Perception

Improved Essays
Descartes’s goal is to look for necessary truths by examining beliefs based off of our senses. To do this, he must prove that sense perception is not a trustworthy source of information, as well as anything that proves some uncertainty as well. For instance, Descartes states that, “if I am able to find in each one some reason to doubt, this will be enough to justify rejecting it”(Descartes 73). This shows Descartes’s belief that if there is some uncertainty in the conclusions which have been previouslymaade, they made must be thrown out. Descartes begins his first argument against sense perception by claiming that senses can be deceptive, and that “it is wiser not to trust entirely to anything by which we have once been deveived”(Descartes …show more content…
Primarily, John Locke questions Descartes theory of innate ideas. Innate ideas, in Descartes eyes, cannot be learned by experience, but rather they are inbeded in everyone’s minds. These ideas include, God and mathamatics. When speakng about these ideas, Locke states, “But yet I take the liberty to say that these propositions are so far from having an universal assent, that there are a great part of mankind to whom they are not so much as known”. Locke claimes that people are not born with these innate ideas, but instead people start off with a blank slate, and they form ideas from sense perception and from reflection upon those senses. Conseqently, Locke challenges Descartes ideas by saying that if people do have innate ideas, then all people should know them from the moment they are conceived. For instance, Locke gives the example of individuals who do not come into the world with these ideas by stating, “For first, it is evident that all children and idiots have not the least apprehension or thought of them”. Locke claims that when a child comes into a world they do not have these ideas such as God and mathamatics. They must be taught to the children as they grow older and form the mental capacity to understand these ideas. His other example is that people who are mentally disabled cannot understand these ideas fully or even at …show more content…
Mathematics is one of Descartes’s innate ideas and it is claimed to be because it does not rely on sense perceptions for it’s validity. However, if one cannot understand mathematics without the reference to a sense perceptions, then it does rely on sense perception after all. An individual must be able to see, feel, hear, smell, or taste different objects in order to differentiate that there can be multiple. Even though this pokes some holes in Descartes theory, he would still have a response. Descartes would believe that since being aware of one’s self is innate, then the idea of one is placed in everyone’s mind; this includes the individual without sense perception. From there, the mind can reflect and infer of notions that if one, then others. Mathematics would in fact be innate. Although this argument does not clearly expose Descartes’s argument to be incorrect, it does cause some uncertainty to whether the mind has the idea of mathematics innately at all. And it if so, this would effect all of his arguments against sense perceptions. According to Descartes, he previously states that he reject any principle that has some uncertainty. This argument gives uncertainty to the argument of mathematics, and therefore disqualifies it from being an innate

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Ryle is suggesting you accept his explanation of why dualism commits a category mistake on the grounds of non dualistic ontology! Although he does argue that the original language explaining dualism is wrong. The way Ryle is critiquing dualism is problematic because for one to build a case against dualism based on beliefs external to dualism is inaccurate. Ryle continues to flip flop between internal and external terminology. Ryle objects to using the term “inside” to describe mental happenings because to do so would require the process to be observable in some sense.…

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    John Locke Simple Ideas

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages

    LOCKE Locke explains the difference between simple and complex ideas from his findings. First Locke believes it is not practical for someone to think the idea of colors is innate in a creature to whom God has given eyesight. Locke will challenge the truth of innate doctrine and willing to admit if it is a mistake by those who believe the truth derives from some other notion. Locke believes that the common principles speculative (having to do with what is the case) and practical (having to do with morality, or what ought to be the case) are commonly accepted because these principles are stamped on our brains at birth. Nothing can be and not be at the same time, which is vaunted principles, which are vaunted logical principles, Locke explained.…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    truths regarding math etc. that did not require sensory experience could be attained by reason alone; other knowledge however, which required experience of the world alongside reason was doubtful. This knowledge could not be regarded as absolute as it required experiences which could not be trusted to be accurate. He added to this assertion by arguing that although dreams appear as real as waking experiences, these dreams cannot provide persons with knowledge, they can only draw from conscious sensory experiences. Also, since knowledge consciously derived from the senses can be the cause of illusions, then sense experience itself can be doubtable.…

    • 1549 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Russell claims that philosophy has no answers, I will argue that Russell is correct about this. First I will object this claim with evidence and opinion to prove it’s wrong. Then I will give Russell’s response and why I support his claim. Lastly I will explain my standing on why philosophy has value without answers. Philosophy is a field of unanswered questions.…

    • 887 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    However the debate between whether mathematics was a discovery or an invention of the human brain leads Marcelo to the conclusion that mathematics is not some magical mythical realm that we are able to tap in to whenever we want. Mathematics is actually a representation of how amazing the human brain can be. We use mathematics to help us form logic, put things into groups, and describe other elements of reality. Mathematics is the result of complex concepts that we have assembled with our minds. Marcelo refers to Gödel and Alan Turing when explaining that mathematics is incomplete and the Platonist ideas of mathematical perfection are not true and if they were, we would not be able to probe and learn from mathematics the way we do because everything would already make sense.…

    • 1331 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Firth tries hard to give us many explanations of an Ideal Observer but his giveaway is when he mentions that an Ideal Observer does not need to exist while claiming Ideal Observer is normal. Why go through so much effort to contradict himself? I can only conclude that Firth’s version of an Ideal Observer cannot exist. There is no true definition of normal, normal consists of human beings that are simply imperfect and biased. Whether or not an Ideal Observer thinks he or she is not, bias is deeply hidden in all of…

    • 2027 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    We are obviously trying but coming with a summation that because if "evil" exists so does some grand designer and we must be in a simulation. I am not sold on that idea although it does seem to be a way around saying there is a God in this reality. Descartes would not like the idea of virtual simulation because we do not have the ability to innately grasp the…

    • 1694 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Bonjour's Criticism

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages

    There is no reason for Devitt that the laws of math and logic could be somehow immune from the same system that science is subject to (BonJour, and Devitt 106). The epistemological ambiguity of mathematics and logic is reconciled by the claim that every phenomena seems to be epistemologically ambiguous (BonJour, and Devitt 106). Even the most direct empirical phenomena has an element of epistemological uncertainty (BonJour, and Devitt 107). That there is ambiguity in these phenomena does not demonstrate that they could not possibly be empirical; this same reasoning should apply to math and logic as well (BonJour, and Devitt 107). Devitt 's claim is modest when stating that his theory is the best that is available, and should be taken as default, despite a lack of obvious epistemological solutions.…

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist. Approaching this argument or proof deductively then puts us in a position of philosophical ambivalence, unable to conclude such a thing about an external world. But then if this is the case, we cannot progress forward intellectually and are stuck in an introspective loop of a doubtful or realistic world. It can then be said, as many skeptic philosophers believe the only known thing is the mind, that our mind is truthfully known to be so,…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Rather, Berkeley argues that all physical things are like ideas (Dialogue 1: slide 18). It is due to this similarity that we can have a sensible relationship with physical things. If material objects were composed of something that we could not access with our minds, then we would not be able to grasp the object’s essence in any way, due our reliance on our minds and ideas to interpret what we perceive in the world. It does not suffice for Berkeley to think that the physical objects cause us to have ideas of them that represent the actual physical objects, because he does not think that ideas and physical objects can be in relationship with each other if they are different (Dialogue 1: Slide 4). If matter were something that was distinct from ideas, we would not have access to it because according to Berkeley, “all that we know or conceive are our own ideas” (44).…

    • 770 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays