Moving on to Descartes, who I see as the earliest skeptic that had revealed the ideas he had of doubt. Seen as the “Father of Modern Philosophy”, he had found him self doubting certain ideas and chose to question them accordingly. To him, “we cannot trust any of our beliefs as long as there is any chance that they might be mistaken”. Throughout there are three subjects that ha been mentioned in Meditation 1: The Senses- level 1, Dreaming- level 2, and The Deceiving God- level 3. Starting with the senses, this notes that there are certain instances where he has experienced knowledge though his senses although a few of these have deceived him, although he concludes that not all things that come from his senses are false, like the idea that he
…show more content…
Hume questions induction, Descartes questions his senses, dreaming, and the deceiving god, Reid questions perception, sensation, and memory, and Plato questions true knowledge concerning wisdom. Within all of these different questions I have had a chance to understand different views and how to perceive them. So regarding the original question of whether I believe Skepticism is more plausible or whether empiricism is more plausible brings me at a stand still. Although I agree with more ideas coming from empiricism, I still have difficult time believing that it is plausible, even though it is more plausible than skepticism. So I suppose between those two I believe that empiricism would have to be more plausible. The reasoning behind my decision goes as follows. With skepticism there is too much questioning and not enough believing, if you question everything around you I feel as though there is no chance to be able to enjoy a life fully. With empiricism you are able to question ideas although there are still certain facts that you are able to accept because of the hard evidence behind them, that to me makes for good ideas. In order to feel comfortable no matter where a person is, there should be a certain barrier between the facts that should be questioned among the facts that should be accepted. After all, “knowledge is true justified
Hume questions induction, Descartes questions his senses, dreaming, and the deceiving god, Reid questions perception, sensation, and memory, and Plato questions true knowledge concerning wisdom. Within all of these different questions I have had a chance to understand different views and how to perceive them. So regarding the original question of whether I believe Skepticism is more plausible or whether empiricism is more plausible brings me at a stand still. Although I agree with more ideas coming from empiricism, I still have difficult time believing that it is plausible, even though it is more plausible than skepticism. So I suppose between those two I believe that empiricism would have to be more plausible. The reasoning behind my decision goes as follows. With skepticism there is too much questioning and not enough believing, if you question everything around you I feel as though there is no chance to be able to enjoy a life fully. With empiricism you are able to question ideas although there are still certain facts that you are able to accept because of the hard evidence behind them, that to me makes for good ideas. In order to feel comfortable no matter where a person is, there should be a certain barrier between the facts that should be questioned among the facts that should be accepted. After all, “knowledge is true justified