Descartes Dream Argument

4001 Words 17 Pages
To meditate is to abandon all previous experience and knowledge in order to build from the ground up. The purpose of this is to prove that all conceptions are absolutely true by specific claims. This theory does not believe that what was known prior came from the senses, because there may have been doubt. Philosopher René Descartes was the original advocate for this type of rational thinking. Born in France, Descartes is known as the foundation of modern Western philosophy. His book, Meditations of First Philosophy, aims to show that the real source of knowledge comes from the mind, rather than the body or senses, creating his own scientific method. There are three points that Descartes focuses on in Meditations, each arguing against the position …show more content…
Since humans know that external objects exist, this type of knowledge can be only available through the mind. Descartes’ dream argument states, physical perceptions are similar in sensation while one is dreaming. Also, that there are no definitive signs to differentiate between when one is dreaming and when one is conscious or awake. Descartes argues that it is possible for a person to be dreaming in any given moment, and for all of their perceptions to be untrue. He believes that sensation cannot dictate certainty in a situation, as illustrated by the dream metaphor. The simplest principles in dreams such as color and nature are not questioned, but the meditator must doubt the correlation between real life and a dream sequence. Through intellect and reason we decide what is true and what is false, according to Descartes, and the dream argument identifies this theory. The next argument he uses to influence his universal doubt is that of the deceiving God. Descartes states that most people believe in an almighty power, God, who created man and is the most powerful. Since God is the most powerful, he has the ability to deceive us in matters of mathematical knowledge that are the most basic to comprehend. God has this …show more content…
The argument of the thinking thing can be countered and is not a clear claim. It is even unknown whether Descartes had in mind to draw a logical inference: he says that the conclusion that I exist from the fact that I 'm thinking is a self-evident perception of my state of being. The statement of, “I think, therefore I am”, is truly disguised. Your existence creates your ability to think and come to intuitions. When you doubt why you are thinking or why you have the ability to think, than you are becoming irrational. Certain people have intuitions or need concise reasoning. Either way, the person’s existence came first and then they came to a conclusion in their mind (thinking) that they need more reasoning or not. Descartes states that we can be deceived from an objective thought, but not the fact that we exist and seem to perceive certain characteristics. If we can be deceived from a thought, isn’t deciding if we exist or not, a thought as well. Therefore, this thought of realizing you exist due to your intelligence is false because the very recognition of that thought creates doubt that it was deceived. The cogito example points to the mental act of thinking one 's own existence. The cogito creates a flash of self-perception and not a rational step from a point A to point B. The very fact of thinking gives me special access to my being, knowing that it is too evident to

Related Documents