Does Descartes manage to defeat scepticism and leave room for human error?
Does Descartes manage to defeat scepticism and leave room for human error? Descartes believes he has defeated scepticism by acknowledging the idea that there clearly and distinctly exists a being that is 'independent and complete'1- God. He finds it necessary to demonstrate the existence of God in order to seek knowledge of things other than the assertion 'I am thinking, therefore I am'. Descartes highlights that there is a contradiction in saying that God is a deceiver because that would imply that God is malicious. Furthermore Descartes says that within him is 'a faculty of judgement'2 of which he is certain has come from God. Thus for Descartes God would not give him a faculty that would make him capable of error. Despite these observations Descartes acknowledges that we are capable of error. The latter seems inconsistent with the previous statements. Since God is not the source of human error Descartes works on finding an alternative explanation. Descartes says as humans are not supreme beings they are prone to making mistakes. Thus human error is not due to God but due to the fact that they are defects. In other words God has not given me a faculty that makes me go wrong, it is just that my 'faculty of judgement' is finite unlike God's. However it is incomprehensible that a perfect creator does not create something which is perfect. If God has the power to make me
Compare and contrast rationalist and empiricist approaches to human nature.
Compare and contrast rationalist and empiricist approaches to human nature. In order to compare and contrast the different approaches to human behaviour that the rationalist and empiricist have, it will be necessary to look at several psychologist and their theories. It is most important to first look at the main differences in the approaches that rationalist and empiricist take and secondly to look at the theories of Rene Descartes (1596-1650): Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): John Locke's (1632-1704) and lastly an overview of the thoughts of: Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), Christian Wolff (1679-1754), David Hume (1711-1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Rationalism is Latin for 'reason' and in science it means 'do not trust your senses as they can be misleading'. Rationalists do not trust senses and put their faith in mathematical proof. In psychology rationalist believe in the 'mind' and innate qualities. Rationalism tends to thrive in France and Italy. Empiricism is Greek for 'experience' and in science means 'trust your senses'. Empiricists use observation, facts and experience to guide them on what can be known. In psychology empiricist believe that all behaviour is explained in terms of learning through experience. Empiricism tend to thrive in England, Ireland and the USA The first modern psychologist, Rene Descartes was also a French scientist and mathematician
Outline the arguments for and against life after death?
Outline the arguments for and against life after death? Questions of life after death have intrigued the dawn of mankind for millennia. This is one of the fundamental questions that none of us escapes. At some point in every person's life, they must come to grips with a universal principle - all living things inevitably will die. Even in the brilliant and celebratory moment of our conception, we are already cloaked in the mantle of bodily death, and we know it. Although much in life has changed over the centuries, when it comes to death and what happens after, we are little different than our ancestors. Although modern medicine keeps many of us alive longer, death inevitably holds away. Then like previous generations, we find ourselves face to face with that which we cannot control or understand. Most people do believe that there is some type of existence after the physical body is gone, and one good explanation for this is that there is no compelling reason not to believe it. What would be the point of going through this sometimes very hard life if we were just going to be reduced to dust after all is said and done? Whatever we believe about death (and what happens after death), its inescapable nature is not in debate. But knowing that death is a universal requirement does not end our predicament - it only pushes our need to understand what life is all about, what its
What kind of claim is, 'cogito ergo sum'?
What kind of claim is, 'cogito ergo sum'? The Second Meditation sees the development of Descartes' arguably most famous claims, 'cogito ergo sum' translated as 'I am thinking therefore I am'. The question about what kind of claim this is has been of heated debate since its establishment. Previous to the Second Meditation Descartes has established that he must doubt everything. In response he asks 'So what remains true?' at the beginning of the Second Meditation. The very fact that he is thinking about doubt establishes for him that he exists necessarily, for as long as the demon continues to deceive him 'he will never bring it about that I am nothing'. In other words as long as the demon is allowed to deceive him, it implies that he exists. At this stage Descartes establishes that 'I exist' but refrains from making judgement about what this 'I' is. Also he says this 'I' only exists as a thinking thing and not in any material way, which continues to remain an uncertainty. Thinking is 'inseparable' from existence for Descartes, for it does not depend up on the senses as previously thought. He had come to realise whilst sleeping that there were many things that he appeared to perceive through the senses, which he afterwards realised he did not perceive through the senses at all. This thing was 'thinking'. Thus this is inseparable from 'I'. The fact that 'I think' does not
How, if at all, does the Cogito help to ground our knowledge securely?
How, if at all, does the Cogito help to ground our knowledge securely? The Cogito is the name given to the famous statement Descartes considers of which he is sure of its certainty: cogito, ergo sum, or "I think, therefore I am". In the Meditations, Descartes actually uses "I think, I am", but this is practically indistinguishable from the former, which appears in Descartes' other main works. Descartes considers that the Cogito to be indubitable, and that he is able to use it to ground his knowledge securely. The Cogito, however, can be said not to be as wide or as useful as Descartes considers it to be. Its apparent indubitably may be said to be one way of securing some knowledge, but it is likely to be the case that the only knowledge which is actually secured is that contained within the Cogito itself. As the Cogito is such a simple proposition to make, Descartes himself commented that anybody could have written it. Its simplicity flows from its clear self-evidence: when one reflects on the proposition, one is thinking, and thus one can neither doubt that one is not thinking nor not existing (at least as long as the proposition is being considered). For this reason, it can be said to be very effective at securing knowledge of oneself: even if a sceptic were to claim that the malicious demon could influence the mind as well, Descartes could reply that even if he were to