3.0 Descartes
3.1 René Descartes was born in La Haye, Touraine. His birth was at a time when the renaissance had resulted in a new surge of intellectual activity. People were beginning to think for themselves and were challenging precedent views of knowledge. Scientific investigation and methodology became the objective technique to achieve this. The Church at around the time was very much disconcerted and infuriated because science was contradicting and challenging their antiquated Aristotelian teleology. Nevertheless, Descartes, despite being a professional mathematician and scientist was a devoted Catholic. He was educated at the University of Poitiers. After his university study he joined the army, during which, he travelled widely across Europe. His study and travelling led him to develop a view of knowledge that was to change the way of rational thinking and it has had a considerable impact within contemporary philosophy.
3.2 Cartesian Method:
As a result of his rigorous study of mathematics, he developed a new branch of the subject that consisted of the appliance of algebra and geometry – co-ordinate geometry. Additionally, he invented the graph. His influence is evident in contemporary statistical study, where of course, the use of Cartesian co-ordinates is used habitually. His affection for mathematical study encouraged him to ask the question - could the mechanism that makes mathematics reliable and consistent be applied to other areas of knowledge? If so, he asserts, there would be a refutation from the sceptics who maintained that nothing could be known for certain. However, even more significant, it would mean that one has a method for obtaining certain knowledge about the world; a method on the basis of science in that the modern sense could be constructed. He came to the conclusion that mathematics was extremely reliable and consistent because of the following reasons; Mathematical demonstrations developed from a limited number of premises of the uttermost simplicity. A simplicity that was incapable of being challenged because it was so obviously evident. For example, a straight line is the smallest distance between two points. The demonstrations then preceded deductively by one logical step at a time, each step being irrefutable, and usually very simple, again indubitable.
3.3 Descartes argued that propositions unrelated to mathematics whose truth is literally impossible to doubt, means that it was possible to use them as premises for deductive arguments. Therefore whatever he can logically deduce from them must be accurate. This, he argued, would give adequate methodological foundations for a reliable body of knowledge.
3.5 In search of Indubitable Premises
In his research to discover indubitable premises he came up with three conclusions. First being, he questioned the experience of direct and immediate observation. For example, when one looks at a straight object when inserted into water, it appears to be bent. However, in actual fact, our direct observation is perceived as looking bent because the senses have been tricked. Therefore, he claimed, one can never be certain that things are in fact as they appear.
3.6 His second set of considerations focused on dreams. He frequently said that he believed himself with absolute certainty that he was doing something or other, but then woke up to find that he was dreaming. Ergo, his argument was how could he be sure that he was not dreaming at this very moment? His assertion therefore evidently shows that he could not be sure as to whether he was dreaming, hallucinating, or anything else along those lines.
3.7 His final attempt to produce an indubitable premise was perhaps the most contentious. He gave a theoretical example of all errors and illusions that he had incurred, saying that, supposing they had happened because of a supernatural force, a demon if you will, who has the power and authority over himself to make him dream vividly so that when he awakes he actually believes that the dream happened or a force that can make him believe that 2 + 2 is 5. Then if so, is there anything at all that the spirit cannot deceive him on? His conclusion was that there was, specifically the fact that of the deliverances of his conscious. Descartes view was that he could not be certain of anything except that he was experiencing particular cognitive events. Indeed, on occasions his views and thoughts were mistaken and inaccurate but one thing that he was absolute certain of is the fact that he exists. This lead to his conclusion of “Cogito ergo sum” – I think therefore I am.
3.8 Further pursuit of certainty:
His view therefore was that there were particular phenomenon outside the world of mathematics and logic that he could be absolute certain of. But his question was - is there anything that can be inferred from those certainties in the same degree of certitude of mathematics? His response invoked the use of the ontological argument for the existence of God. In encapsulation, his argument was that he knew himself as being imperfect, ephemeral and finite, but in his mind he has the concept of an infinite and immortal being, and one that is totally perfect. Furthermore, he asserted that it is an impossibility that anything should be able to create something superior than itself out of its own resources; therefore the perfect being must exist and that being (God) must had inserted knowledge into his consciousness of its existence. Descartes expanded on the theory by saying that the fact he knows of God’s existence and that he is perfect, means that he can put all his trust into him. On doing so he maintained he would not be deceived like he has been by the malicious evil spirit.
3. 9 Effectively, his overall summary was that if he put in all his attention and disciplined thinking required by God, he claimed he could be certain of all clear and distinct things presented to him. However, he could not do this using his senses because they are prone to imprecision, but conversely, his mind that apprehends from God and mathematics was able to understand the information precisely without any form of vagueness.
3.11 Evaluation of Descartes:
Descartes’ views and theories have informed and profoundly influenced modern philosophy. His assumptions have offered a new perspective of consideration on the question of knowledge. He gives a logical and rational account on what can be considered as certitude. However his views faced rigorous criticisms, most notably the ones outlined below and over the page.
- His use of the term “Cogito ergo sum” is claimed by some as being vague. Is the ‘cogito’ an inference? And if so, then he is perpetrating the error of circular reasoning; because the ‘I’ of ‘I am’ is already assumed in the ‘I’ of ‘I think’, and any requirement it holds is a matter of logic that says nothing about its existing things. Possibly, the ‘Cogito’ is to be comprehended as referring to some form of intuition of him as a particular being that is able to think, and if so, he has to face more challenging problems.
- His claim that he knew he existed because he could think is criticised because there is particular times when he is not thinking, so does this mean that he continues to exist as a potentially thinking being? Additionally, in many of Descartes’ work he subliminally refers that he may have had to access to a continuous ‘self’. A view that has been deemed as baseless by many philosophers. A German philosopher claimed that the only thing Descartes could be certain of was cogitator (that is, ‘there is thinking going on’)
- If Descartes is to be objectively certain in his statement of ‘cogito’ he has to rely on his memory. In the process, ignoring the question of his probable or actual views about a ‘self’ (in which the memory could be located). Accordingly, one can legitimately ask what rationalisation Descartes has for believing his memory reports to be dependable. Without such assurances his ‘mental’ life would indeed appear to segment into a series of irregular and disconnect episodes. This, of course, is indubitably an unsound basis in which to construct a philosophical system.
- His ‘verticality’ of sense perception and the dependability of memory rely on the validity of his proofs of Gods existence. But does this not render the ‘Cogito’ assertion redundant. Furthermore why did Descartes not preliminary start of with his affirmation of the innate idea of God?
- Descartes often quoted that mathematical propositions (for example 2 + 3 = 5) are perceived clearly and distinctly, but he applies his profound certainty to particular groundless imaginary beings, e.g. the evil demon.
- Another critical criticism rejects the use of his methodology. Hume, for example, rejected the possibility both of universal doubt and of obtaining an original principle. He argues that if there were such a principle, we would not be able to proceed by it without using those very faculties about which we are cynical. Conversely, Ludwig Wittgenstein cross-examines the question of ‘privacy’; he contends that when giving careful consideration of Descartes sceptical premises, experiences, perceptions etc, they must have remained private to himself. However, he has to use language to refer to them and language is, of course, public. Therefore when he describes his internal experience he is allowing in at the back door the external world he had previously thrown out through the front door. His methodological cynicism cannot consequently be sustained.
3.12 Evaluation of Rationalism
Rationalism has very much influenced modern thinking and rational philosophy. Additionally, it has offered a potent alternative that attempts to explain how knowledge is acquired. Nonetheless, over the centuries it has suffered intense criticisms from scholars and prominent philosophers. The criticisms outlined below cover the main fundamentals of the condemnation.
Empiricists’ such as Hume and Locke claim that young children give little, if any, indication of any form of innate knowledge. Rather, the empiricists pointed out that sense experience was the way the infants were able to gain knowledge.
Secondly, the empiricists’ asserted that reasoning was not the only method for achieving knowledge. They accepted that it may not be possible for all knowledge to be obtained through sense experience but, they claimed, that this didn’t mean reason was the principal way of knowing.
Thirdly, the empiricists’ also claimed that reason was prone too many contradictions, metaphysical and otherwise.
Fourthly, if you followed the progress if someone who has no idea of a God, would he/she still have the innate ideas? Additionally, if the assertion is to be taken seriously, how does it account for individuals, who are strong atheists, i.e. no belief in any god?
4.0 Empiricalism
4.1 Empiricism is a theory that holds that the primary origin of knowledge is obtained through sense experience and inner perceptions of the mind. Its origins stemmed back to the philosophy of Aristotle. He of course, formed his work as a response to the abstractions of Plato and Pre-Socratic philosophers. The fundamental belief of all empiricists’ is that humans are born as an empty being that knows absolute no knowledge at all. It is from sense and inner perceptions that the empiricists’ believe humans develop knowledge about their cognitive states and the external world. As a result they reject altogether the rationalists’ views. In particular, Descartes’ theory about the innate idea of God is regarded as preposterous. Nevertheless, even although the empiricists rejected innate ideas, in favour of ideas from experience, it is important to note that the Empiricists do not reject the conception of instinct or innateness. Indeed, they argue that humans have inborn tendency which controls biological functions, produces such things as emotions, and constructs our thinking. What empiricists’ deny, however, is that humans’ are born with vivid, concepts of God and mathematics. The main philosophers’ associated with the approach include Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), III. John Locke (1632-1704), IV. George Berkeley (1685-1753), V. David Hume (1711-1776). Like Descartes’ was contentiously the most influential figure behind rationalism, similarly, Hume is arguable by far the most significant individual behind empiricism.
5.0 Hume
4.3 David Hume was born In Edinburgh. He was a professional legal expert and throughout the years of his career he held various public posts. He spent most of time working in France for the English embassy, during which, he spent a considerable amount of time working on writing books. His most famous book arguable being his ‘dialogues concerning natural religion’. The significance of this book did not become recognised until after his death. Nonetheless, the professionalism and the aptitude of all his books greatly influenced the approach of empiricism.
5.1 Hume’s study:
Hume advocated that knowledge could only be legitimately be derived from experience (a view that was equally shared by Locke). He rejected the possibility of any form of absolute certainty of a material world existing externally to humans. His assertion was not a point about the world but a point about the concept of knowledge; specifically – “certainty in matters of fact, is unavailable to us therefore we only have hopeful possibilities but no certainties”. Hume claimed that ideas are associated with three fundamental principles of connexion, namely, resemblance, contiguity and cause and effect.
His views
5.2 When one introspects, what one finds is themselves contemplating sensory experiences, thoughts, emotions, memories, etc but they never find themselves confronting a different sort of entity from these. Depending on this practicality, Hume’s argument was, one could not assume the existence of anything that is not obtained through experience. In terms of God, Hume was sceptical and rejected the whole concept of him, using empirical evidence or rather, the lack of it to refute him. He criticised evidence that suggested the existence of God,
slamming it as ‘vague’ and ‘indistinct’. However, he frequently emphasised that the complexity and size of the universe could possibly suggest the existence of a God. His overall argument surrounding both the self and God was that they could only be proved and justified through the use of supportive evidence but as he pointed out, there was no such support. This crucial form of argument was used by Hume influentially about the cause and effect relationship, causality itself. Causality is, of course, the phenomena that accounts for one event causing, or being caused by another; and during the causes there is relentless regularities in the occurrences. The principle of causality is relevant to the question of knowledge because it enables us to make sense of our environment. Hume pointed out that causality like self and God cannot be observed. For example, if one observes Event B being caused by Event A and thereafter Event B, one has not observed a third thing – that is a casual connection linking the two. Saying A caused B to happen it different A happened then B, instead it is the same as saying, A brought B about. For example, every day is always followed by night, yet, they are both caused by something else (i.e. day is not the cause of night). Therefore a correlation between two events can be invariant without either of them being the cause of the other. Given this, if a constant conjunction is the most that one can ever observe then how are we ever to differentiate those examples of it, in which the connection is casual from those which are not? Hume pointing out this argument caused a new problem for philosophers, specifically, if it is impossible for us to have foundation experience to assert that one event causes another; how is science possible? As a result of the new dilemma that he was faced Hume advocated “mitigated scepticism”. This is his view that everyone should accept that conclusive proofs play no role in human phenomena outside the world of mathematics. He claimed that no one could ever be certain of a situation
5.4 Evaluation of Hume’s empiricism:
Hume is perhaps the most prominent individual behind the view of empiricism. His work has offered invaluable insights into the theory that knowledge is acquired through the senses. His arguments are logically explained and even the sceptics would argue that a relatively large amount of his work is well founded. The empiricist approach has also significantly influenced the behaviourist psychological approach. In analysis of particular behavioural theories, the concepts and similarities between that and empiricism can be seen evidently. However, like anything related to philosophy there are always criticisms. Hume was no different and could not avoid them unfortunately; some of the main criticisms of him and the approach are highlighted below
- Hume and his counterparts’ complete rejection of innate knowledge are inconclusive to particular concepts that support it. For example how would his theory account for contemporary psychological research that suggests there is a correlation between specific hereditary factors?
-
Sceptics criticise two aspects of alleged empiricist "certainty": the uncertainties of data, and uncertainties during inductive
- The Machian principle of empiricism attacked by Planck includes the claim that "gravitational attraction was not just unknowable (an empiricist view), but there was no such thing: it was merely a human construct useful for the economy of thought and for the mathematization of particular experimental relationships
- The empiricist view is also inconclusive in terms of their concept of obtaining knowledge through the senses. Specifically, does this mean that one cannot rely on their senses as they are prone to deception.
6.0 Conclusion:
Rationalism was an approach primarily developed by Descartes. The rationalist view held that knowledge is acquired through the use of reasoning. They believed individuals were born with innate ideas such as in the concept of God. Sense perception was considered as deceiving and misleading thus was strongly neglected by the rationalists’. Conversely, a major alternative that endeavoured to explain how knowledge is obtained was developed by the empiricists. Empiricists held the view that knowledge is essentially attained from sense experience. They regarded innate ideas as lacking foundation, which as a result, meant they believed were humans born with no knowledge at all. Both views have offered comprehensive and intriguing insights into the question of knowledge but the significant point to remember is that the views are not proven. This means that one should be sceptical when deciding which view is accurate or similarly when deciding on which view is inaccurate.
