Descartes realizes that some of the beliefs he thought were true turned out to be false. In the pursuit of knowledge he seeks to tear down his previous beliefs and build them up again upon a firm foundation. In other words, he is engaged in a foundational project, searching for a class of beliefs that themselves are not in need of justification in order to justify his other beliefs. But is this quest a misguided one? Do such beliefs exist? If not, does that mean that knowledge is impossible? Or is there some other way to justify our beliefs?
I think that Descartes' search for foundational beliefs is the wrong method of justifying other beliefs. Using the example of building a house, the house itself would simply collapse if it doesn't have a strong foundation. Therefore it makes sense for Descartes to recognize that what he had previously built (his previous beliefs) wasn't true and that he had to tear it down to restart. He also recognized that he needed to start with a sturdy foundation (a belief that doesn't need justification) or else everything built on it would crumble. Searching for this foundation would be simply searching a belief that can stand to be true without justification, which I don't think is possible. Knowledge is defined as a true belief that is justifiable, so seeing that a belief cannot stand by itself, it has to justifiable to be of use to Descartes (as knowledge), a belief by itself is worthless and cannot be used as a foundation. I think that knowledge is possible as long as someone thinks that a belief is true. Someone that thinks a belief is true would have some kind of justification since they think a belief is true. If they didn't have any sort of justification, then they wouldn't believe that a belief was true, because it simply wouldn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteDescartes' quest to find truths that are so fundamental that they do not need anything else to be held true seems flawed. Although the alternatives are not much better, the idea that there is a set of beliefs that are true in and of itself does not sit right in my mind. This does not necessarily mean that knowledge is impossible, but we might not be able to justify it to the extent that we want to. Maybe there is a situation where we can trust our senses or our mind to justify the knowledge that we think we have. Or can we accept that we do not have knowledge at the core of it, but we have beliefs subjective to us and our senses that is sufficient to get us through life even if it is possible that they are not completely true. This idea is unnerving if thought about for too long, however for everyday life I feel that it is sufficient rather than the search for beliefs that are fundamentally true based off nothing else.
ReplyDeleteDescartes quest to find knowledge I think in its idea is totally valid. I think his process of abandoning beliefs if they are flawed works in the perfect world. I think that the idea of building them up on a perfect foundation is wonderful too because it'd allow us to learn about new ideas without having to question their morals. However I think in practicality trying to go about this is in itself flawed because realistically everything in life is going to biased or flawed. I think this quest is also pretty useless because even if he finds these perfect beliefs and forms an unshakeable foundation people aren't going to change to his philosophy over night. I think overall knowledge is possible in the sense of geometry and math like you can learn math and prove it and that will always remain true. I think that knowledge about things like how do I know if I'm dreaming or not will never be known or can be found out to be true or false. Seeing as its hard to tell the difference and I could very well be in a matrix right now. Maybe there is a situation in which I can prove things exist outside of math but at this point in time I think the only knowledge I can trust I have is math.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible for two valid arguments to exist and yet directly contradict each other (e.g. economists, in spite of being highly educated people, disagree all the time). Thus, even if Descartes's arguments are valid, that does not necessarily mean they are true. This demonstrates that even if he does technically know something, we would not without fault be able to tell if his argument or an opposing argument also based in logic was indeed correct without some form of external truth. In short, we can hold many logically-based beliefs which are true, but we will never know which of these beliefs we have knowledge of and which seem to make sense but are simply not true. If we were to wake from a dream and realize that our entire life had been a falsehood, or if we were to meet God, we would not even then be able to prove these things true, as we could be experiencing yet another dream. It follows that we can gain no practical knowledge, as we will never know what we know.
ReplyDeleteEven if it is impossible to have practical knowledge, it is possible to have relative knowledge, which is infinitely more useful to us. As the former only pertains to a world which we may never interact with, it is useless to us, and thus effectively is meaningless. In short, we cannot ever confirm our technical knowledge, though if we are willing to accept that the world we live in is real, we can have what is effectively knowledge, which we can effectively confirm by observing our surroundings.
Descartes is misguided in his approach towards gaining knowledge, or whatever he may perceive knowledge as. Knowledge is entirely subjective, so there's no problem is tearing down and possibly reorganizing one's beliefs. Truth on the other hand is entirely different. So if Descartes believes that knowledge is truth, than he must use his past findings, right or wrong, to build a strong foundation, because these experiences provide lessons and can give perspective to future observations. If his ideas are originally fanatical then I would toss them out, as they do not benefit him whatsoever. If they are in the public scope, everyone deserves a chance to view information, even if the foundation is flawed.
ReplyDeleteI think his journey is misguided. While I can understand building a foundation for his beliefs in the search of knowledge as well as tearing them down to rebuild better, I don't think it's possible to find a perfect set of beliefs that justify everything else. I see it as a fool's errand. Searching for the perfect set of beliefs is going to be impossible, and justifying them to everyone is equally as ludicrous. The perfect set of beliefs doesn't exist, nor does the perfect person. But it's in the search for something like that that builds us up. Striving for perfection leads to excellence, but you can never reach perfection, especially with something as subjective as beliefs. Justifying your beliefs shouldn't be a challenge, it should come natural to you. After all, if you didn't believe it, how could you justify it?
ReplyDeleteIt's as simple as this: if you try to go that distance, you'll never get there. However, it's in that journey to get there that you end up growing as a person, becoming someone better by building or replacing your beliefs.
This is Tyler by the way
Delete