Outline and critically discuss Descartes’ dreaming argument and evil demon argument
Descartes’ presents two sceptical arguments as part of his hopes of laying a solid Epistemology based foundation on which the sciences can be built. While the arguments themselves are valid there are issues with Descartes’ logic both in the finer detail of what he writes and in the bigger picture of his arguments.
The dreaming argument consists of a line of reasoning based on our lack of ability to firmly know whether or not we are asleep or awake. The formulation for Descartes’ argument goes as follows:
1. If I am certain that I am sitting by the fire, then I must be certain that I am not dreaming.
2. I cannot be certain that I am not dreaming.
3. I cannot …show more content…
Descartes Meditation reads as though his thoughts are being spoke aloud, he reaches this formulation through his description of ‘How often, asleep at night, am I convinced of just such familiar events – that I am here in my dressing-gown, sitting by the fire-when in fact I am lying undressed in bed!’ (Descartes’ First Meditation, Reason and Responsibility). It are situations like this which lead Descartes’ to develop his sceptical argument towards our lack of certain knowing if the events we are experiencing are truly occurring. This argument has risen again through Philosophers such as James Pryor and the movie/pop-culture phenomenon The Matrix. While the reasoning follows the same pattern as Descartes the more popular example to use when questioning our experiences is whether or not we can be sure that we are not in The Matrix (a machine run computer simulation that all people believe to be real when in fact the reality is that humanity is being kept in pods and used for an energy source). The fact that hundreds of years after Descartes that this level of scepticism towards our own existence still exists is a testament to Descartes argument since it has clearly stood the test of time. However it is important to note that just because an argument has remained in the subconscious of a populace does not make it anymore …show more content…
Descartes puts forward the reasonable proposition that if something has deceived us once then we can never completely trust that thing again. So since our senses deceive us on a regular basis then we shouldn’t trust our senses at all. Now the issue here is that Descartes conclusion of not trusting our senses at all is very extreme and unreasonable, in fact it goes against his original proposition of not completely trusting that which has deceived you even once. Descartes conclusion jumps past just not completely trusting your senses instead saying you shouldn’t trust your senses at all. The logic doesn’t work since Descartes had it right with his original proposition. People lie and deceive us all the time but we do not choose to completely distrust them. For example a significant other might organise a surprise birthday party for you but in the process have to lie to you in order to make sure it remains a surprise. You wouldn’t go on to completely distrust them because they lied to you. You may be a little more sceptical of what they say In the future (or not completely trust them) but you wouldn’t not trust them completely. This is the same with the senses, just because they deceive us sometimes doesn’t mean we don’t trust them at all. In fact the senses is the most unreasonable example Descartes could have used for his
Descartes’ presents two sceptical arguments as part of his hopes of laying a solid Epistemology based foundation on which the sciences can be built. While the arguments themselves are valid there are issues with Descartes’ logic both in the finer detail of what he writes and in the bigger picture of his arguments.
The dreaming argument consists of a line of reasoning based on our lack of ability to firmly know whether or not we are asleep or awake. The formulation for Descartes’ argument goes as follows:
1. If I am certain that I am sitting by the fire, then I must be certain that I am not dreaming.
2. I cannot be certain that I am not dreaming.
3. I cannot …show more content…
Descartes Meditation reads as though his thoughts are being spoke aloud, he reaches this formulation through his description of ‘How often, asleep at night, am I convinced of just such familiar events – that I am here in my dressing-gown, sitting by the fire-when in fact I am lying undressed in bed!’ (Descartes’ First Meditation, Reason and Responsibility). It are situations like this which lead Descartes’ to develop his sceptical argument towards our lack of certain knowing if the events we are experiencing are truly occurring. This argument has risen again through Philosophers such as James Pryor and the movie/pop-culture phenomenon The Matrix. While the reasoning follows the same pattern as Descartes the more popular example to use when questioning our experiences is whether or not we can be sure that we are not in The Matrix (a machine run computer simulation that all people believe to be real when in fact the reality is that humanity is being kept in pods and used for an energy source). The fact that hundreds of years after Descartes that this level of scepticism towards our own existence still exists is a testament to Descartes argument since it has clearly stood the test of time. However it is important to note that just because an argument has remained in the subconscious of a populace does not make it anymore …show more content…
Descartes puts forward the reasonable proposition that if something has deceived us once then we can never completely trust that thing again. So since our senses deceive us on a regular basis then we shouldn’t trust our senses at all. Now the issue here is that Descartes conclusion of not trusting our senses at all is very extreme and unreasonable, in fact it goes against his original proposition of not completely trusting that which has deceived you even once. Descartes conclusion jumps past just not completely trusting your senses instead saying you shouldn’t trust your senses at all. The logic doesn’t work since Descartes had it right with his original proposition. People lie and deceive us all the time but we do not choose to completely distrust them. For example a significant other might organise a surprise birthday party for you but in the process have to lie to you in order to make sure it remains a surprise. You wouldn’t go on to completely distrust them because they lied to you. You may be a little more sceptical of what they say In the future (or not completely trust them) but you wouldn’t not trust them completely. This is the same with the senses, just because they deceive us sometimes doesn’t mean we don’t trust them at all. In fact the senses is the most unreasonable example Descartes could have used for his