In Michael Huemer’s essay, “The Lure of Radical Skepticism,” he expands on the idea that ‘we cannot know anything,’ by outlining four different arguments supporting the claim. (Huemer 47-57) René Descartes holds the opposite opinion, which he discusses in ‘Meditations One and Two.’ While there is validity to both sides of the argument, Huemer’s essay proves to be more reliable after dissecting Descartes’ concepts of existence.
Huemer proposes that no one can know anything about the external world, or anything that exists outside of the mind. It is impossible to be certain of how many fingers one has, or if surrounding objects are real or solely a mental representation. Every person, in the assumption there are multiple people in the external world, knows only of their own mind. There is no evidence that objects and people are real, because our minds are relying on our senses which, Huemer claims, are unreliable. (Huemer 47-57) “As an aside, notice that the skeptic does not say you only know what is going on in your head. He says you only know what is going on in your mind. “Heads,” just like fingers and books and brains, are objects in the alleged physical world of whose existence we can never be certain.” (Huemer 48)
Huemer dissects …show more content…
But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once.” (Descartes 33) However, after focusing on that concept he realized that in order to think and doubt the existence of everything, he must first exist. Following that line of reasoning, he realized that his existence was the only thing he knew to be true, and by extension, his intellect and his ability to think was also
Huemer proposes that no one can know anything about the external world, or anything that exists outside of the mind. It is impossible to be certain of how many fingers one has, or if surrounding objects are real or solely a mental representation. Every person, in the assumption there are multiple people in the external world, knows only of their own mind. There is no evidence that objects and people are real, because our minds are relying on our senses which, Huemer claims, are unreliable. (Huemer 47-57) “As an aside, notice that the skeptic does not say you only know what is going on in your head. He says you only know what is going on in your mind. “Heads,” just like fingers and books and brains, are objects in the alleged physical world of whose existence we can never be certain.” (Huemer 48)
Huemer dissects …show more content…
But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once.” (Descartes 33) However, after focusing on that concept he realized that in order to think and doubt the existence of everything, he must first exist. Following that line of reasoning, he realized that his existence was the only thing he knew to be true, and by extension, his intellect and his ability to think was also