Cartesian Skepticism Essay Example

Topic: Suppose someone argues for skepticism like this: People have different beliefs. People disagree about how old the world is; whether there is life on other planets; and even whether Bigfoot exists. So there's no truth about how old the world is; whether there's life on other planets; or even whether Bigfoot exists.'

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Cartesian skepticism is defined by ideas such as the fact normative social constructs are differentiated for different communities and the reality that the truth is what you make it. Being that Cartesian Skepticism is a branch of philosophy then without a doubt thinker interested in it as a subject make use of premises to arrive at deductions or to explain them. For the longest time possible arguments based on Cartesian Skepticism have been based on deductive reasoning; in layman language deductive reasoning revolves around concluding first in the making of an argument before explaining (by means of premises) why a particular argument or inclination has been settled upon. Cartesian Skepticism is also known as the method of the doubt (Salvatore, 2014).

In the medieval period, a lot of free thinkers and philosopher argued regarding whether the world was flat or a globe. Every thinker involved in this particular debacle was given the freedom to present his side of the story; one common rule of engagement was that every argument is right so long as the presenter of that argument was willing to back it up with supportive premises. Another argument that was very common during this time is that of whether there was a supreme being that made the heavens, the earth and the seas; some people believed that God was a reality while others believed that God was nonexistent.

The Method of Doubt

Beliefs are many a time built on other beliefs. If it were possible for us to remove all of our false beliefs there is a guarantee that we will be building upon a good foundation. Cartesian Skepticism as an ideology affirms that reason now leads people to think that they should hold back their assent from points of view that are never entirely indubitable and certain as carefully as they do from those that are patently incorrect. With doubt in the picture many thinkers such as Rene Descartes will not agree to believe in anything that can be doubted; in this manner, we are able to find exactly what we are capable of believing in; whatever it is beyond doubt

Is this argument for skepticism a good one?

The basic advantage of skepticism is that it helps all of us as a race to question several presentations of truths before agreeing in consensus to what schools of thought make up the universal truth. Without skepticism, we would be living a lie because any initial attempts to develop thoughts would be quickly embraced without disputes. Disputes about everything that has ever been perceived as truth has helped us as a race to slowly work our way to the truth. It is worth mentioning that skepticism is what has led to empiricism. Through empiricism, those in doubt of deductions, i.e. sceptics have been able to conduct experiments on the shape of the earth being an oblate spheroid, the force of gravity, or the proposition that the earth is flat (Perler, 2017).

My judgment with respect to that last question means a lot to my belief in skepticism based on arguments like the one this paper presents (Neto, 2015). Skepticism helps us not to accept any moral judgment at face value. As such, skepticism has made us understand ethical questioning as a form of legal proceeding where no single thing is accepted if supporting evidence is not presented. Evidence never has to be conclusive or offer a particular type of knowledge. All the same, it has to offer sufficient supportive reasons to arrive at a verdict which can endure sensible doubt. Many a time, no particular article of proof will create a satisfactory motivation to acquit or confine, but the entirety of the pieces engaged together will (Shogenji, 2017).

Should we form beliefs based on arguments like this?

Doubt is contrasted with assent or belief. By making a choice to doubt each and everything thinkers of today, just like Descartes, are withholding faith or belief. Knowledge is basically defined as Justified True Belief; and as such making a choice to doubt each and everything implies not being aware of anything. Freethinkers and philosophers make use of the name Pyrrhonian skepticism for schools of thought that do not claim to either be very much knowledgeable or lacking in that very knowledge. This can be differentiated with Academic skepticism which is known to initiate claims that human beings are aware of nothing. Universally accepted skepticism is usually self-refuting, and for that matter, individuals are only academic sceptics regarding a specific school of thought (for example Hume with knowledge of casual connections) (Greene, 2015).

We thus have the capability to doubt the existence of any object be it material or abstract so long as it is out of our minds. This is because all human beings at some point or the other have doubted the foundational beliefs on which any school of thought has been based, basically our belief in the capability of our senses to present to our knowledge of the planet earth. The only thing that man is sure of is the several concepts and experiences immediately within our minds. External world skepticism is thus arrived at; the idea that any human being is unable to be aware of any particular thing so long as it is out of his temple.

In times of old and even in the avant-garde type of thinking, abstract ideology is predisposed to a lot of doubt. Doubt stems from a reality that a majority of human beings are only likely to believe the knowledge that they have experienced.

Philosophers classify knowledge into different taxonomic units and as such the two main classifications include knowledge that stems from experience, i.e. a posteriori knowledge and another which does not come from experience, i.e. a priori knowledge. It is worth mentioning that not every individual agrees that there is a priori knowledge (Alexander, 2017).

Renee Descartes at some point in his life very much undermined a posteriori knowledge and suggested that if truly a priori knowledge is a reality then it is okay. The primary candidates of a priori knowledge are mathematical truths; the same applies to logical truths like 2+3=5 or even modus ponens. Other candidates revolve around the fact that there are experiences of several kinds and several fundamental truths that are metaphysical such that for any given fact there are enough explanations for that particular fact, that is, out of nothing comes forth.

References

Alexander, D. (2017). Unreasonable Cartesian Doubt. Philosophia, 45(2), 503-522.

Greene, R. (2015). A Critical Introduction to Skepticism, by Allan Hazlett. Teaching Philosophy, 38(2), 243-246.

Neto, J. R. M. (2015). The skeptical cartesian background of Hume's" of the academical or sceptical philosophy".

Perler, D. (2017). Spinoza on Skepticism. The Oxford Handbook of Spinoza, 220.

Salvatore, N. C. (2014). Wittgensteinian epistemology and Cartesian skepticism.Shogenji, T. (2017). Formal Epistemology and Cartesian Skepticism: In Defense of Belief in the Natural World. Routledge.