Three Minute Philosophy | Descartes

Brief Bio

René Descartes was a French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician who lived in the mid-1600s. Unlike other philosophers at the time who backed up their philosophical teachings with appeals to god, Descartes was a rationalist and based all of his understanding of the world upon the power of deep thought and logic.

??FUN FACT??! Descartes' decision to pursue the mission of "reforming all knowledge" came to him in a dream!

Teachings

Descartes spent his life using logic to understand the definition and nature of knowledge and how one attains it. He stated in First Meditations that when dealing with the complex, messy topic of knowledge there will always be two sides to the story which will either back you up or crush your beliefs: Common Sense and the Skeptic. Descartes wanted to develop such a firm foundation of the nature of knowledge that it can stand up against the doubts of the most stubborn of skeptic, and he named the process of doing this the Method of Doubt.

More specifically, this method was developed when Descartes concluded that many of his beliefs turned out to be false (weird for someone of his knowledge and professions to think this!) and from this realization, he pondered if he had any knowledge at all. He wanted to create a process of determining which of his beliefs were correct...

And after spending hours upon hours lying in bed which consisted of thinking, drinking, and thinking some more, the Method of Doubt was formed!

The Method can be described as the dialogue of one's inner Skeptic and their common sense when discussing the meaning and nature of knowledge. And in this "discussion", Descartes determined what he thinks are the two primary sources of knowledge: the senses and the intellect.

Conversation One: The Senses | Is Observance Really a Reliable Source of Knowledge?

Let's outline the discussion between Common Sense and the Skeptic for this topic:

Common Sense: Sense perception IS reliable. If I see a tree in front of me I know it's a tree, if I touch a hot stove, I know it will burn me. What's untrue about this?

Skeptic: Yes, but perception of distant vague objects may feed you false information. If I dip my finger in a cup of water, it will look as if it is distorted. Sense perception is susceptible to errors.

Common Sense: That may be true for objects under those conditions, but it is nearly impossible to perceive close-up objects as something other than what they actually are! If I'm holding a ball right under my eyes, I will have firm knowledge/understanding that it is a ball.

Conversation Two: The Intellect | Can Intellect Provide us with Greater Knowledge about Unclearer Concepts?

Common Sense: The proven fundamental concepts of our world, mainly in fields like mathematics or the sciences, are 100% true no matter one's condition. I can be alive and well or in a completely dream-like state (more on that later!) and yet I will still understand that 1+1 = 2.

Skeptic: But what if there is an entity of some sort that can disprove even the most self-evident of concepts? This entity can make us believe that that which is false is actually true.

Let's break these two conversations down. In the first, Common Sense brings up the point of how despite the fact that distant objects may be perceived as something they are not, I will have a strong knowledge of what is close-up in front of me. Or in other words, simplistic concepts can be broken down and it's nature can easily be comprehended. However, that of which is more abstract and complicated cannot be fully understood and the mere "perception", or general understanding of it, will not give one fundamental knowledge of its functions.

In the second conversation, Skeptic brings up the idea of some mysterious entity who turns one's understanding of the world on its head. Now, I, as well as you (I'm sure), as well as Descartes all believe that this entity does not, and will never, exist. The reason Skeptic brings it up is because he wants to prove that knowledge is not a fixed concept. A whole group of people can think that they understand how the world works inside out but can this knowledge be defined as the knowledge of the world? Are there different types of knowledge? Is knowledge subjective? It can get really weird!

Something interesting Descartes brought up about this idea is the topic of dreams. He stated that when one is dreaming, they are not conscious that they are not awake. Because of this, one can have their own wild variation of the world and how it works and still think it's normal.

This is my favorite quote by Descartes and it sums up all of what I said perfectly:

"The only certainty I can find is that nothing is certain!"

Descartes ??

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1) The Method of Doubt can be described as the dialogue of one's inner Skeptic and their common sense when discussing the meaning and nature of knowledge

2) Using the Method of Doubt, knowledge can be broken down into two categories: the senses and the intellect

?? Hey! Thanks for reading! If you want to learn about more projects that I’m working on, follow me on LinkedIn!