Descartes’ Method of Doubt
Descartes’ method of doubt is an epistemological exercise in which all types of opinions and beliefs are examined and questioned, until a one of indubitable certitude is uncovered. Having realised that many beliefs he has held at one time or another were subsequently revealed to be fallacious, and that even a single false belief is enough to destabilise an entire structure of knowledge, Descartes sets out to find a strong foundation with which to build back up the beliefs he has torn down with doubt. In undertaking this, Descartes also hopes to defeat the sceptic by using his own tool against him – doubt. The method comes in three stages in which doubt is applied differently and the process is refined, as the material …show more content…
I’m not so sure. The unreliability of the senses, through their own shortcomings or through the argument from dreaming, and the deceiving God hypothesis are perfectly serviceable if one is merely supposing. In fact Hanfing argues they are in fact wholly unnecessary, given that we do not require reasons to imagine or suppose, only a hypothesis to suppose (1984). If, and I suspect they are, intended to illicit genuine doubt in the reader, they fall rather flat. Given that there is not even the slightest reason to believe any of these scenarios, there is no reason to truly doubt. Perhaps sensing this, Descartes makes the claim that simply supposing he is dreaming causes him to nearly convince himself that he is in fact dreaming. But in later conceding that he could not maintain this uncertainty – blaming it on “indolence” – Descartes reveals the impossibility of consciously generating doubt and truly holding such an opinion.
Descartes’ method of doubt is also flawed in its conclusion. The Cogito may well stand as an impressive piece of assured knowledge – albeit one which had more or less already been stated in different forms by Aristotle some thousand years before. Yet according to Arnold Berleant, “Descartes' proof of his existence… follows, not from his use of the method of doubt, but from his adoption of that method” (1966). In other words, it is not any particular brilliance on the part of his method which leads Descartes to such a “discovery”. Rather, it is a necessary condition of its
Descartes’ method of doubt is an epistemological exercise in which all types of opinions and beliefs are examined and questioned, until a one of indubitable certitude is uncovered. Having realised that many beliefs he has held at one time or another were subsequently revealed to be fallacious, and that even a single false belief is enough to destabilise an entire structure of knowledge, Descartes sets out to find a strong foundation with which to build back up the beliefs he has torn down with doubt. In undertaking this, Descartes also hopes to defeat the sceptic by using his own tool against him – doubt. The method comes in three stages in which doubt is applied differently and the process is refined, as the material …show more content…
I’m not so sure. The unreliability of the senses, through their own shortcomings or through the argument from dreaming, and the deceiving God hypothesis are perfectly serviceable if one is merely supposing. In fact Hanfing argues they are in fact wholly unnecessary, given that we do not require reasons to imagine or suppose, only a hypothesis to suppose (1984). If, and I suspect they are, intended to illicit genuine doubt in the reader, they fall rather flat. Given that there is not even the slightest reason to believe any of these scenarios, there is no reason to truly doubt. Perhaps sensing this, Descartes makes the claim that simply supposing he is dreaming causes him to nearly convince himself that he is in fact dreaming. But in later conceding that he could not maintain this uncertainty – blaming it on “indolence” – Descartes reveals the impossibility of consciously generating doubt and truly holding such an opinion.
Descartes’ method of doubt is also flawed in its conclusion. The Cogito may well stand as an impressive piece of assured knowledge – albeit one which had more or less already been stated in different forms by Aristotle some thousand years before. Yet according to Arnold Berleant, “Descartes' proof of his existence… follows, not from his use of the method of doubt, but from his adoption of that method” (1966). In other words, it is not any particular brilliance on the part of his method which leads Descartes to such a “discovery”. Rather, it is a necessary condition of its