This is a difficult question. In short, I believe that we can’t exist and have a happy productive life if we are constantly questioning everything in our reality. We would never be able to trust, love, or make advancements for our society. We or at least I, would turn into a shut-in constantly questioning everything I thought I knew. I can’t live like this. I think that if we accept Descartes’ is correct, and the only thing we can know with complete certainly is that we exist, we also have to accept that there are other things we are going to have to accept as certain in order to function, whether they are true or not. Basically we have to accept that there are things we will never know for certain, and we have to be alright with that.
…show more content…
Plus, I agree with his arguments in the beginning. The parts about objects only being what we perceive seem valid and true. All we really know is what we sense, things that come through the filter of our minds. With that in mind, it is not a huge lead to say that our minds are causing all the things we perceive. Everything in our personal worlds really are just interpretations from our minds and they are shaped by our ideas. However, as I have mentioned before, I am not religious, so the second part of his argument is where I stop believing him. He says that things still happen when we are not around because an Ethereal Being (God) is perceiving them, I do not believe this. Without this argument, his logic fall apart because he cannot explain why things happen when nobody is perceiving them. In our discussion of Descartes’ we could say that when he said God we could substitute computer, this does not quite apply in this case, since we are not talking about control or deception but rather perception, which we associate with a sentient being, we cannot use a computer instead. Since I do not believe in God, I also do not believe in the part of his argument where he states that things happen because an Ethereal Being is perceiving them. Without that part of the argument he cannot say why things happen when nobody is around. Without the piece I cannot agree with him. If there were a substitute for God in this case or another explanation for why things happen when nobody is there to perceive them, I would be more inclined to believe him. Especially because I think the rest of his arguments are
Plus, I agree with his arguments in the beginning. The parts about objects only being what we perceive seem valid and true. All we really know is what we sense, things that come through the filter of our minds. With that in mind, it is not a huge lead to say that our minds are causing all the things we perceive. Everything in our personal worlds really are just interpretations from our minds and they are shaped by our ideas. However, as I have mentioned before, I am not religious, so the second part of his argument is where I stop believing him. He says that things still happen when we are not around because an Ethereal Being (God) is perceiving them, I do not believe this. Without this argument, his logic fall apart because he cannot explain why things happen when nobody is perceiving them. In our discussion of Descartes’ we could say that when he said God we could substitute computer, this does not quite apply in this case, since we are not talking about control or deception but rather perception, which we associate with a sentient being, we cannot use a computer instead. Since I do not believe in God, I also do not believe in the part of his argument where he states that things happen because an Ethereal Being is perceiving them. Without that part of the argument he cannot say why things happen when nobody is around. Without the piece I cannot agree with him. If there were a substitute for God in this case or another explanation for why things happen when nobody is there to perceive them, I would be more inclined to believe him. Especially because I think the rest of his arguments are