Category: Doubt

I chose to write my paper on Descartes Cartesian Project. I thought his thinking process was very interesting and also very confusing at the same time. Although he left a mess behind, he is known as the “father of modern philosophy.” One of those reasons is of course because of his Cartesian method. Descartes Cartesian method had four steps: (1) accept as true only what is undoubtable, (2) divide every question into manageable parts, (3) begin with the simplest issues and ascend to the more complex and (4) review frequently enough to retain the whole argument at once (Kemerling, 2011).

Descarte found it necessary to include this first rule as an association to knowledge. Everybody has knowledge and is believed to be beyond doubt, but when we think about it again, there isn’t a single subject that people haven’t debated about. It is difficult to learn and debate about something when there is no true right or wrong answer so it is very easy to believe what is doubted. If there is a doubt within knowledge it can not be accepted as true, it must be known to be true in which doubt is not even considered. That is when it can be accepted as knowledge (Aarya, 2010).

After the first rule, he then found it necessary for the second rule to break up the question into parts to work them out individually. Things that are known can only be known when compared to the unknown. But nothing is ever actually unknown, because if that were true, then nothing would be known. That is why we must break up the problem and find its truth. To find the truth within a question, there has to be a component within that question that is not known, or else there would be no point in the question. You must then lay out the unknown so there is no risk for deviating away from the main point at hand. Lastly, the unknown can only be accepted as known if it is compared to something that is already known. (Aarya, 2010) In this way, it allows us to know that it is unknown and allows us to figure it out.

The third rule is to help distinguish between the simple issues and the more complex ones to find the truth in a structured manner. This also allows us to see how each of the truths contributes to one another and distinguish between the two different relations which include the absolute and the relative. (Aarya, 2010)

The fourth and final rule was included so that nothing would be missed. Knowledge is difficult and in a lot of cases, it is hard to remember how you got to your conclusion. That is why you must keep running it over and over in your mind to compensate for memory. This must be repeated until you can run it through your mind smoothly and uninterrupted because if you miss one detail from the original, you can lose the truth. (Aarya, 2010)

Moving on from the Cartesian method, we find ourselves now at the Descartes project of doubt, known as the Cartesian Project. There were three steps he went through during this project: (1) doubt senses, (2) doubt dreams, and (3) the evil genius (Newman, 2019). He first went through doubting his senses because who is to say that what he is seeing in front of him is real because in the past his senses have deceived him and is not sure if he can trust them. Although his senses have deceived him in the past, there seemed to be many other beliefs that would make it difficult to doubt. Such as holding a piece of paper in his hands or sitting by the fire. Even if his senses deceive him, something is being deceived, therefore, he exists.

Descarte then started to doubt his dreams and started to wonder if he is awake right now or if he is ever even awake. He started to have these doubts because he noticed that in dreams, we would have similar experiences to if we were awake. He called these the “Now Dreaming Doubt” and the “Always Dreaming Doubt,” which are parasitic of each other because he kept finding reasons to doubt the other (Newman, 2019). But he then turned to math and realized that math is always correct. Whether he is awake or asleep, two plus three will always equal five. He decided that since Something is dreaming, he must exist.

Lastly, he started to believe that maybe there is an evil genius that is controlling and deceiving him. Descarte has always believed that there was a creator who was all-powerful and good. But then started to doubt this because a creator who had these traits would not allow his creations to ever be deceived. Leading him to believe that maybe the creator is an evil genius instead who is operating in an indirect manner against him. Although maybe he is being deceived, something is being deceived, therefore, he does exist. Descartes Cartesian Project is known as “Radical Doubt” because Descarte would refuse to accept anything as the truth unless it was clearly true in itself.

Going through his project of doubt and his innate ideas led him to discover that knowledge of the nature of reality derives from ideas and not the external senses. He believes that ideas are innate if their content is derived from the nature of the mind alone such as mathematics, logic, and metaphysics instead of experiences. This is because what we see can deceive what we know but if we are to dig out the innate truths from our own minds, it is our own native intelligence (Newman, 2019).

At the end of the second meditation, he devastatingly realized, “I think, therefore I am” or also known as “cogito, ergo sum.” He does not admit that there is anything inside of him except for his own mind. He realized that objects and even the body are not strictly perceived by the senses or by imagination, but by the intellect. Not by being able to touch or see something, but from being able to understand them. Coming to this realization, he could achieve a better and easier understanding of his own mind than anything else.

Discoveries by scientists are made out of their curiosity about the natural world. In order to fulfill their goals, they tend to doubt on things and question themselves to find and understand the truth and have answers to the phenomenon. Skepticism is a theory of doubting and questioning knowledge claims to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of speculations.

Based on the article entitled Descartes and the method of doubt by Michael lacewing (n.d.), according to Descartes doubt is the foundation of knowledge. In the process of having a doubt, Descartes said that do not reject everything as false and avoid believing things that are not entirely certain. Descartes only doubts his beliefs in order to find what is certain. As he said perception as illusions, however there is no illusions. On his famous quote “I Think, therefore I am” he doubts everything even his existence for that scientist develop a theory about existence of soul.

The first step in scientific process is observation. In observing we become curious to a specific object or event and in the process, we are having doubt that leads to formulating of questions. Curiosity comes with interest. That eventually or by the empirical method can formulate a hypothesis, experimentation, and overall results.

Doubt is the reason why we allow ourselves to question things around us. As stated in the article entitled “The Roles of Doubt in Science and Faith” (Udoewa, V, 2011), science is naturally doubtful in its developing state. Even though we already know everything, doubt still exist. It is said that the true aim of science is to leave an individual in doubt, thus through showing evidences and proofs will be the way to manifest facts and truth. In some cases, doubt is even stronger after it is already proven and it leads skepticism in a person.

In conclusion, doubt is the starting point of science which will help to find true knowledge. Descartes’ method of doubt allows us to find what is certain. It helps to discover what beliefs are true and correct. The main purpose of this method is to reject what is true. Everything we believe to be true and right should be test with a doubt for us to find what is correct because we cannot really find true knowledge if we didn’t start with a doubt and curiosity. According to George Hermes (Schulte, K.J., 1910), the starting-point and chief principle of every science, and hence of theology also, is not only methodical doubt, but positive doubt. One can believe only what one has perceived to be true from reasonable grounds, and consequently one must have the courage to continue doubting until one has found reliable grounds to satisfy the reason.

REFERENCES

1. Lacewing, M, (n.d.). Descartes and the method of doubt. Abingdon,U.K.: Routledge
2. Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from: http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/alevelphilosophy/data/A2/Descartes/DescartesDoubt.pdf
3. Schulte, K.J. (1910). George Hermes. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert
4. Appleton Company. Retrieved from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07276c.htm
5. Udoewa, V. (2011). The Roles of Doubt in Science and Faith. Huffpost: Vertzon Media Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-many-roles-of-doubt_b_930592

In this essay, I will be exploring each stage of Descartes’ Method of Doubt and their aims in depth. Descartes’ uses the Method of Doubt more as a method of certainty with the aim of 1 building a certain and indubitable basis for knowledge . He ultimately aims to generalise all 2 human knowledge to certainty by running commonplace opinions through three stages of 3 doubt – retreat from the senses, madness and dreaming and the imperfect creator hypothesis, in order to reach his aim of certainty.

In the First Meditation, Descartes uses the Method of Doubt to arrive at a solid basis for his 4 knowledge and philosophy which cannot be doubted, as he regards this to be the strongest 5 starting point for certain knowledge. There are three stages to his Method of Doubt, which go as follows: retreat from the senses, the madness and dreaming hypothesis, and the imperfect creator hypothesis (which is sometimes also known as the evil demon hypothesis). Each stage is a response to scepticism , since each stage is questioning how we know the knowledge and 6 if we can be certain of it. Cartesian scepticism, the kind of scepticism that Descartes engages in, is different to classic scepticism because whilst they are both based on a dissatisfaction of knowledge and how we go about obtaining it, Descartes actively chooses to doubt, whereas for the classical sceptic the doubt ‘creeps up’ on them.

The first stage of Descartes’ Method of Doubt is a retreat from the senses. The aim of this first stage is to test whether or not we can rely on knowledge obtained from our senses, and it questions whether or not we can doubt knowledge which comes from seeing, touching, hearing etc. During the time that Descartes lived, there were two obvious sources for opinions – religion and science, but he starts with the senses as the first foundations of knowledge, because they do hold the basis for the majority of our opinions , as influenced from the a posteriori system of Aristotelian sciences. Therefore, since we need to doubt all of our opinions to establish a strong starting point , it would only make sense for Descartes to start with the senses. Descartes applies doubt to the senses and reveals that we cannot rely on knowledge obtained from the senses to be certain, since the senses can deceive us and we should therefore not place our complete trust in them. An example of this would be that a cow in a field appears to be different sizes dependent on how close to the cow we are and how we are perceiving it, so we can never be sure about how big the cow actually is. Therefore because senses can conflict it makes them unreliable as a source of knowledge.

The overall aim/result of this first stage is to demonstrate that our senses, although a main source of ‘knowledge’ for us, are unreliable and can be doubted, and thus any knowledge derived from the senses cannot be used as an indubitable basis for philosophy or making certain claims. This means all claims we make from the basis of see, touch, hear, taste etc are unreliable and uncertain.

The second stage of Descartes’ Method of Doubt is madness and dreaming. Unlike the first stage which questions the opinions themselves, this second stage questions our capacity to understand these opinions. Descartes starts by likening himself to a mad man , which means that he can doubt his entire reality and his entire physical existence, as he would not be able to rely on his reason if he were insane . However, Descartes quickly abandons madness as a possibility because it is inaccessible, and it is actually ‘too strong’ – the Method of Doubt is reliant on reason to be effective , as we need to use our reason to be able to doubt and question our ideas, and if we were all mad then we would not be able to do this. Descartes therefore appeals to dreaming to inspire doubt . Dreaming is better to practice doubt than madness, since dreaming is much more common and therefore more accessible to the meditator. It is possible that the reality we experience is all created in a similar mindset to a dream , and therefore we cannot be certain of this reality; dreaming has all the same marks as experiences that you have when you’re awake , since they seem so real and coherent. It is still useful that Descartes considered madness, since it highlights the power behind the dream hypothesis; dreams can be seen as ‘self-contained episodes of madness’ , since they can seem so real and coherent, so the madness comparison helps to highlight that we do need to call into question our capacity to understand our opinions, since the dreaming hypothesis is very possible.

In a second part to the dreaming hypothesis, Descartes compares dreams to paintings. Both dreams and paintings represent something which actually exists in the outside world , whichwould suggest that even if our reality were to be perceived as a dream, then there would still be something similar to this representation that exists in the external world. There still remains the possibility of fictional representations and abstract dreams – ideas such as sirens and satyrs don’t exist in the external world, so this means it cannot represent anything. However, these abstract ideas still conform to general categories of mathematics and geometry, for example shape and extension, which would suggest that we can certainly be sure of mathematical truths.

The overall aim/result of this second stage is that we can conclude that mathematical truths are indubitable and therefore reliable because even the most abstract concepts conform to these mathematical truths, meaning their representation must exist as part of an external world. The second stage aimed to question our rational capacity to understand our opinions instead of questioning the opinions themselves.

The third stage of Descartes’ Method of Doubt is the imperfect creator hypothesis. It is possible that an omnipotent being/evil genius exists, who is deceiving our entire experience, and could even be tricking us about basic mathematical truths that we thought to be indubitable. Sincethis is a very real possibility, we therefore cannot be certain that we ever have an accurate experience of the world , and we can doubt everything we experience except our own thoughts.

One possible solution is given by Descartes, and that is that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God/creator would not allow us to be deceived in this way . Therefore, if there is aomnibenevolent and omnipotent creator, then we can assume that our experiences aren’t the result of being deceived by an evil genius.

The evil genius/imperfect creator hypothesis is still important, since the aim of it seems to be to strengthen our will so we do not fall back into bad habits of believing all opinions without doubting them and questioning them first. It acts as a reminder for the standard of certainty that Descartes’ established at the start – certain knowledge should be indubitable.

To conclude, there are three stages in Descartes’ Method of Doubt. The first stage, retreat from the senses, aims to test whether or not we should trust empirical knowledge which the majority of our opinions are based on. The second stage, the dreaming hypothesis, doubts our capacity to understand our opinions, and the third stage, the evil genius hypothesis, strengthens our will to test all opinions/claims. The overall aim of the Method of Doubt is to build a certain and indubitable bank of knowledge in order to successfully engage in philosophy.

Bibliography

1. Aldrich, Virgil C, ‘DesCartes’ Method of Doubt’, in ​Philosophy of Science​, Vol 4, No 4 (University of Chicago Press, Oct 1937), pp. 395 – 411.
2. Brandhorst, Kurt, ​Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, Edinburgh Philosophical Guides (Edinburgh University Press, 2010)
3. Descartes, ​Meditations on First Philosophy: Meditation One​, pg 18
4. Kurt Brandhorst, ​Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, Edinburgh Philosophical Guides​ (Edinburgh University Press, 2010), pg. 21.
5. Michael Williams, ‘Descartes and the Metaphysics of Doubt’ Oxford Readings in Philosophy – Descartes (Oxford University Press, 1998) pg. 28.
6. ​Virgil C. Aldrich, ‘DesCartes’ Method of Doubt’, ​Philosophy of Science​, Vol. 4 (1937), pg 402
7. Williams, Michael ‘​Descartes and the Metaphysics of Doubt’,, Oxford Readings in Philosophy – Descartes ​(Oxford University Press, 1998), pp 28 – 49

In Shakespeare’s didactic play the themes of ‘doubt’ and ‘guilt’ play a central role in the presentation of the tragic hero: Macbeth. Macbeth has to make many decisions throughout the play that revolve around his guilty conscience.Whether it be him doubting himself about whether to kill Duncan or him feeling guilty and regretful after his act of regicide. However, Macbeth’s guilt at his actions ultimately leads him down the brutal path of murder and betrayal. By the end of the play, at Macbeth’s downfall we have come to see a demoralised Macbeth who has come to realise the consequences of his actions.

In this extract, Macbeth is contemplating the murder of Duncan and his inner turmoil is preventing him from being definite in his decision. An example of this is when Macbeth states “we but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return to plague th’ inventor.. commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice to our own lips.” Here we see how Macbeth’s ‘vaulting ambition’ is becoming stronger but he is still able to suppress it which proves that Macbeth understands his thoughts are wrong.The verb ‘plagued’ connotes biblical imagery of punishment which foreshadows Macbeth’s punishment for his actions going against the divine right of kings. The use of the metaphor ‘poisoned chalice’ suggests Macbeth’s kingship will not be successful. This could further suggest that Macbeth recognises that his ambition to be king will not be successful which shows he is being rational. Furthermore, the adjective ‘bloody’ highlights a motif of blood which creates graphic and violent imagery. Macbeth understands that violence breeds violence and is hesitant to go forward with his plan as someone could murder him in retaliation.The audience can see that Macbeth is not completely certain in carrying out his plan, he is weighing up the possibilities. Shakespeare suggests that Macbeth still has a conscience and he needs encouragement in order to overcome his doubt.

Following Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s act of regicide, Macbeth is overwrought with guilt and regrets the decisions he made. Guilt is established through the recurring motif of blood in the play, evidence of this can be seen in the use of hyperbolic description in act 2 scene 2, “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand?…my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine,making the green one red.” Macbeth’s relentless emotions have overcome him as he is struck with grief. The colour red is synonymous with death and bloodshed which juxtaposes the colour green which connotes nature,life and growth. Macbeth has so much blood on his hands that he is able to ‘make the green one red’, he is able to corrupt the purity of the ‘ocean’ with his sins. The blood is a metaphor for how Macbeth cannot escape the guilt of him murdering Duncan similar to how Macbeth cannot ‘wash this blood clean’ from his hand. The sin Macbeth has committed is so sacrilegious that even ‘all great Neptune’s ocean’ cannot cleanse him from the act of regicide. This foreshadows Macbeth’s speech later in the play as he comes to acknowledge that he is ‘in blood stepped so far that should I wade no more’. Macbeth’s macabre language emphasises how he is too late for salvation and is too far into the river of blood that he can’t come out. Shakespeare is warning the audience of the severity of committing regicide and going against the divine right of kings because of how it stains your soul.

By the end of the play we are able to see the downfall of Macbeth in which he feels nihilistic and regretful by his actions. Evidence of this can be seen when Macbeth rues “Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow”. The metaphor of a ‘brief candle’ represents life and Macbeth is commenting on how fleeting and pointless it is. This is such a dramatic change from his behaviour at the beginning of the play, that the audience understands that he has completely lost all hope. Macbeth’s once burning ambition has dwindled and now he is left with regret and guilt at his actions. Furthermore, the repetition of ‘out’ reveals Macbeth’s desire for his own personal ‘candle’ to blow out as he is tired of existence. Macbeth’s reductive language signifies his despair at life and despondency at the situation. This also does indicate that Macbeth does not take responsibility for his actions as he portrays himself as the victim and to be ‘a poor player’. However, despite this Macbeth is determined to fight till ‘from my bones my flesh be hacked’. The morbid imagery forebodes Macbeth’s demise as he is later beheaded by Macduff. The importance of the divine right of kings is clear here, as Macbeth usurped his way as king by committing regicide which subsequently led to his gruesome death. Macduff inflicted retribution and restored the divine right of kings which Macbeth disrupted. The downfall of Macbeth helped Shakespeare convey his message to the audience of how guilt prompts people to take actions that lead to their downfall.Through this change in Macbeth, Shakespeare’s message may be that despite gaining everything he wanted Macbeth ultimately regretted his decisions which led to his death.

Shakespeare presents doubt and guilt as fatal flaws which lead to the downfall of people. Similar to most of Shakespeare’s tragedies, Macbeth is presented as the tragic hero who succumbed to his fatal flaw and then shown regret. Macbeth’s hamartia is his vaulting ambition which begot his guilt and paranoia. Through this didactic play, Shakespeare is warning us on the dangers of guilt which stems from making reckless and impulsive decisions.

Fear doubt and guilt are prevalent results of any type of abuse from a partner and form unhealthy relationships.The Long Term Effects of Abuse and Stress Ruins not only the relationships but Lives as well. It is easy to get wrapped up in the ups and downs of emotionally abusive on and off relationship. Victims too often miss the signs of emotional abuse, even though they are most likely there from the beginning. Narcissists are the most common perpetrators of emotional abuse. What traits does someone that deals with narcissism have, and what does that person look like in the early stages of dating?

Signs that cause fear and guilt in a romantic relationship are Avoiding acknowledgment of the feelings of others, while at the same time bringing up how their emotions are being effected. This is the ultimate guilt trip that victims are groomed into believing. This can manipulate men or women victims that they are the issue and it is their own fault for getting their feelings hurt. Not only does this self pity cause guilt but also poor self reflection. An example is When a partner intentionally or unintentionally expresses something that leads the other to feel demeaned and then blames this victim for their emotions. A constructive way to identify the red flags of your partner is to analyze the emotions you experience from their presence or communication. Look out for feelings of guilt, shame, hurt, rejection, depression, or anger. Take action. getting in touch with the emotions your nervous system is signaling you. Making yourself more vulnerable to them, by apologizing on their behalf, easily giving up in an argument to avoid confrontation and deny anything is wrong by not taking responsibility and lying to self, is enabling the abuser. Most often women suffer more frequently from abuse then men however, “Emotional abuse crosses all social classes, ethnic groups, sexual orientations and religions. The common denominators of abusers are personal, social and psychological, not demographic”.

Narcissistic attitude can be hard to spot but there are very subtle signs you might discover in a loved one that can lead you to come to the conclusion that they are in deed a narcissist. In the specific case of women who are subjected to emotional abuse it is very probable the abuse is due to a misogynistic mind set. This way of thinking has been ingrained deeply in the roots of history and religion. In the play, Hamlet by William Shakespeare the main character lord Hamlet has a very openly misogynistic view saying, “’Get thee to a nunnery. Get thee to a nunnery, farewell. To a nunnery, go – and quickly too’” 3.1-121, 137, 140. He says this to poor ophelia. Hamlet sexually objectifies Ophelia here, while he orders Ophelia to a nunnery, otherwise known as a brothel, because he assumes that all women are unfaithful and all wives cheat therefore they are not good for anything but there bodies. this is possibly a result from his upbringing in a highly gender specific society. A society at doesn’t believe a man should cry even when he has lost his beloved father. Hamlet is told, while grieving, that a man shouldn’t be crying, by his uncle Claudius. “’Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet. To give these mourning duties to your father. […] but to persevere In obstinate condolement is a course Of impious stubbornness. ‘Tis unmanly grief. It shows a will most incorrect to heaven, A heart unfortified, a mind impatient, An understanding simple and unschooled” (1.2.90-92; 96-101).

A narcissists person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves. Known as they kind of pretentious kind of people that think the world caters to them. Believe it or not we’ve all most likely met a narcissist and didn’t initially ,or if not ever, noticed it. they will often Tell lies and half-truths for attention, self importance or to avoid having to explain their actions they will Accuse and blame to divert attention away from themselves and Refuse to accept the perspective of others while irrationally defending their own positions. One of the most blatant signs of an abusive narcissist is if they Withhold information in areas affecting the lives of those they are abusing. This gives them the control to manipulate future events. although 75% of people with narcissism are found to be male, women can also be narcissists. women in relationships with violent and self absorbed men is that it can drain the energy of working mothers. “It also diminishes a woman’s ability to care and provide for her children and to participate in the work force” (Miller, 1995; Burstow, 1992).

Female narcissists treat the men in their lives in a manner indistinguishable from the way male narcissists treat ‘their’ women. “The problem is, the malignant female narcissist rarely outgrows her excessive sense of entitlement, lack of empathy and thirst for interpersonal exploitation – she merely adjusts these traits to her changing environment. The female malignant narcissist is not just vain and self-absorbed. She is also a covert bully who ensnares fellow female friends, relationship partners and family members into her toxic web” says Shahida Arabi on 5 Signs You’re Dealing With A Dangerous Female Narcissist.

Those that hold fear guilt and shame above their significant other’s head are never setting up a relationship to be successful. Instead they are subjecting their partner to a life ruined by low self-esteem and a poor self-image. Feelings of detachment, isolation and fear never belong in any relationships, romantic or not. Follow your instincts and doubts,” doubts are your issues in disguise” says Harley Therapy in his article Doubt in Relationships – Useful or Toxic? He studies Counseling of, Relationships. He suggests “Doubt in relationships – a sudden fear or uncertainty about the person we are with – is inevitable and not necessarily a bad sign”. But you can never be too careful. Doubt is rarely the real problem in a relationship. It’s a lack of communication that tends to be the true issue. However, when red flags appear never let them go without analyzing them.

In the Meditation I, doubting plays a huge role in the project, the whole project is based on skeptical doubts and those doubts lead him to the conclusion that he exists. He wants to be completely sure of what is real, so the best way to prove it is to test everything he believes and learnt that is real with doubt. In this essay, I would highlight the significant role of doubt in Descartes’ project by examining his dream and evil demon argument.

As I stated earlier on, doubting plays a very important role in Descartes’ project, he uses this doubting method as a way of gaining new and accurate information. He has this mentality that in order to gain new knowledge you must first question everything you’ve learnt to determine if they are all real or not, so he does a sort of spring cleaning to everything he knows and believes by performing this doubting test. He hopes that his method of doubt would rid him of false beliefs, make him arrive at true beliefs and discover a good foundation on which he can build his knowledge on. His doubting leads him to the theory “Cogito, ergo sum”, which means I think therefore I am. His doubts lead him to the conclusion that he exists since he thinks. He goes through three waves of doubt before concluding his meditation, he doubts our senses, then he questions if we truly are awake and lastly, he has the demon argument.

Notably, he continues his meditation with the dream argument Even though our dreams may seem realistic enough to our senses, it might just be an illusion. In the dream argument, the main question is how certain are we that everything we believe is real or that we have experienced is not a dream. In his dream argument, he believes that there is no actual way to distinguish being awake from being in a state of dreaming, we could all be dreaming right now, and if so, our senses are deceiving us. If they are deceiving us, then our senses can be doubted, therefore our senses are not a certain foundation of knowledge. Descartes proposes the dream argument to show that the most relied on source of knowledge, the senses, can not be relied on. He uses this dream argument to show that some things we easily think are true may not actually be true as it might have been a dream as there is no way to tell if we are wake or not and we are being deceived by our senses into thinking they are true.

Sometimes are senses could prevent us from learn new things as a result of prejudice from some of our former knowledge. In addition, he believes that although the senses might deceive us, they are some things that cannot be doubted because we know for a fact that they are real. “But it may be said, perhaps that, although the senses occasionally mislead us respecting minute objects, and such as are so far removed from us as to be beyond the reach of close observations…” (113). Here he states that the senses may deceive us into thinking some objects being are small and distant but there are some things that the senses bring to us that are quite impossible for us to doubt. He uses an example of him doubting his body parts, he concludes that for him to doubt things like that he must be like those mad men that are convinced they are kings and that they are dressed in fancy clothes when in fact they are paupers and are naked or dressed in grass, proving that there are some undoubtable facts.

Another reason why the sense can not be trusted according to Descartes is that we could all be hallucinating or be experiencing an illusion thinking everything is real as once again our senses could be easily deceived. He would rather much believe reasoning over his senses as the senses can not be trusted whereas reasoning could be doubted and defended. He used the example of basic arithmetic where even in his sleep two plus three would still add up to five and a square would still have only four sides. He then goes unto the evil demon argument, but he firstly acknowledges the existence of an all-powerful God. He then proceeds to consider the fact that maybe he is being deceived by God into thinking that he is real, he could be in an illusion where he is on earth, but he disputes that thought by saying that God’s nature is inherently good and he would not do such a cruel thing to him. He goes on with the evil demon argument, he thinks what if he is being deceived about everything by an evil demon who is so bent on deceiving him. What if he is being deceived that two plus two equals to four or as he is counting the sides of the square he is being deceived into thinking it is four, or what if he does not actually have a body that everything he sees and thinks about is an illusion and is being fed to him by the evil demon. He says he may never know all these, but he knows that his senses can not be trust as they could be easily manipulated.

After his waves of doubts, he concludes with “Cogito ergo sum” which means “I think therefore I am”. He attempted to doubt his existence but instead he realized that in order for him to think about his existence or even think at all or in order to be deceived, he must exist. To Descartes, his method of doubt may have been successful in proving his existence.

Philosopher René Descartes was a rationalist who sought to refute the scepticism of his time – this was due to the people losing trust in the authority of the church thanks to the Scientific Revolution. He wanted to create a new foundation for knowledge and so embarked upon the Meditations, his 6-day diarised quest to find something “firm and lasting in the sciences”. Since he was a rationalist, Descartes wanted to prove the superiority of reason over empirical truth. In this essay I will argue that although the relentlessness of Descartes’ method of doubt is efficient in rejecting empiricism and – to an extent – certifying the precedence of rationalism, he is still subject to conflictions and thus we cannot be convinced of the validity of either foundation.

Descartes’ Meditations aims to provide a clear and certain root for knowledge which science can use to build upon. In order to do this, he must first doubt everything he once believed to be true. This is his ‘Method of Doubt’, also formally known as Cartesian Scepticism (Ortín, 2019). Here, Descartes asserts that he must use a rigorous approach to be able to successfully find something he can be certain of. What this means is that Descartes must follow the rule – if a belief could be false then it should be treated as if it were absolutely false, i.e. that which is true or reliable must be immune from doubt. From this he sorts his beliefs into categories and explains that if he finds even one problem or doubt in either of these categories then the whole set must be discounted. It is important to recognise here that Descartes’ form of doubt is unlike the typical doubt we exercise, but is rather known as ‘hyperbolic doubt’ (ibid.), meaning that he will reject on any grounds he finds to be dubitable. This strategy appears thorough enough for Descartes to be able ward off all unnecessary beliefs and make his way towards epistemic clarity.

In the first wave of doubt he brings his focus to empirical truths, being those which are gained from the senses. He realises that, at times, his senses have deceived him in the form of optical illusions or objects in the distance. Therefore it is uncertain to him whether he can know when to trust these perceptions. However Descartes only appears to reject a fragment of sense experience here, so he must now find a way to reject the entirety of empirical knowledge – specifically the knowledge which concerns our current state of sensory being, since Descartes was referring to past occurrences. This leads him to the second wave of doubt, known as the Dream Hypothesis. The thought experiment here forces us to consider whether we know for certain that we are not dreaming. Descartes asks how often his sleeping state does “persuade me of such ordinary things” (p.60), which leads him to suppose we don’t truly know what real life is since we cannot distinguish between dreaming and reality. With this Descartes is able to conclude that all ‘a posteriori’ knowledge cannot be validated or trusted, thus destroying the empirical foundation for knowledge. A criticism which can be drawn out here is that, in being able to claim that our dreams are sometimes replicas of waking life, one is presupposing the distinction – we cannot suppose our whole life is a dream since it would contradict with the very concept of a dream (Cardinal, 2006, pp.38-39). Although Descartes’ argument is not considering one is always dreaming as this problem suggests, he is still able to find doubt in his present state which he sought to do. The application of Descartes’ method of doubt here is therefore successful and straightforward in setting out arguments which refute empiricism, especially with the Dream Hypothesis which is more accessible to the meditator as an idea.

Now only left with ‘a priori’ knowledge, Descartes must test the validity of reason in order to complete his rigorous endeavour. Known as the Evil Genius hypothesis, he thinks of an omniscient, omnipotent but evil deity rather than a benevolent one – that this deity has purposely mislead him to believe certain truths about the physical world (which reason is concerned with). This is the ultimate sceptical argument for Descartes since he is a rationalist and believes in God (Skirry, n.d.), and so he will have to challenge these beliefs in accordance with the same scrutiny he applied to empiricism. Following from his hypothesis, Descartes realises that this deceit could be applied to all ‘a priori’ truths, such as that our ideas about shape, size, colour and mathematical truths exist at all (Frankfurt, 2009), leaving him in a state of diabolic doubt since there is now nothing which he can truly be certain of.

Following this state of epistemic jeopardy and massive scepticism from Meditations I, Descartes persists on his rigorous approach to find just one thing he can be certain of. He recognises that if he can find a way to defeat the Evil Genius problem then he will have reached his goal of finding a foundation which is unshakable to scepticism. Thus, he introduces the Cogito – an adaptation from his “Cogito Ergo Sum” featured in his ‘Discourse on Method’. Translating to “I think, I am”, the Cogito asserts that if one is in a position to doubt or be sceptical, then this itself proves their existence. The explanation for this claim is self-authenticating and innate to us, a necessary truth which we can use as a foundation for other claims we make. Moreover, the intuitive nature of it supports rationalist ideas, which is what Descartes also aimed to show. To answer the problem of the Evil Genius, therefore, Descartes implies that if he is being deceived by God then he must be existing – if he is able to think of such deceit then it must be necessarily true that he has a mind to be deceived. This undertakes a form of dualism, being the idea that our minds and bodies are completely separate. The realisation that knowledge is gained through the process of thinking from the Cogito provides the key foundation for all future epistemic pursuits, and marks the starting point for the power of reason over experience.

While the Cogito manages to assert something at this point in the Meditations, it is still accountable to some criticisms. For example, philosopher David Hume points out that thinking is in fact an experience, and thus the Cogito is no longer an ‘a priori’ truth but rather an ‘a posteriori’ one – we are just a collection of impressions (Hume, 1738). Although this doesn’t necessarily refute the idea of the Cogito, it still conflicts with Descartes initial aim to prove rationalism as the superior foundation for knowledge. Another criticism is by philosopher Bertrand Russell who points out that what the Cogito merely shows is “there are thoughts” (Russell, 1945). ‘I think’ also contributes to a circular argument – it assumes what it sets out to prove. The Cogito is arguably successful in appealing to one upon first glance – I cannot doubt that I am thinking because doubting is a form of thinking. However, one should be careful of how to interpret the certainty of this – if it’s just an intuition or if it’s a logical deduction which leads one to believe the conclusion. The trivial nature of the Cogito therefore doesn’t bring Descartes very far in his quest for knowledge, even despite his attempts to revive the credibility of reason in it.

Meditations I and II both set Descartes on a path in which he uses rigour to sift his way through all cases of pseudo-knowledge with his method of doubt. Quickly destroying the foundation for empirical knowledge, Descartes is able to move onto the more complex foundation being rationalism, with which he is espoused. Applying the same level of scrutiny to ‘a priori’ truths allows for a fair trial and doesn’t undermine its validity nor its invalidity. In effect, it brings to light the recurring problems such as the Evil Genius which, although difficult to resolve at times – leaving Descartes in states of utmost doubt, help him to further contemplate and challenge these perplex puzzles in order to progress in his epistemic pursuit for knowledge.

How much power can a teenage girl have? Enough to make her friends turn on someone? Enough for her parents to turn on someone? Or can a teenage girl have enough power to impact a whole town? This very idea was explored in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. In Miller’s play, the character Abigail Williams, convinces people to confess to witchcraft. Most of the main characters confessed because they were doubtful that no one would believe them and lost hope or got stressed out and flustered. Fear is a factor that defeats people, but it’s not the biggest factor, which leads us to believe other elements, such as doubt and stress, can defeat individuals more than fear.

One factor of defeat is setting high goals can lead to sadness and anger, which results in damaged mental health. Most Students who attend school are the ones who set high goals, especially for college. When a student is trying to get into the best school in the country, it may be hard. In order to achieve this goal, they may turn to problematic behaviors, such as, skipping sleep, meals and even enjoyable activities, such as sports, to study. Even after all that studying, they might not make it in. In this example, the student takes time to study and gives up so much to get into their dream school. When the college rejects them, it will it cause sadness and the feeling of wasted time that will defeat the student. This also can defeat them by making them believe that their best isn’t enough. In The Crucible, Abby Williams wanted to end up with Procter which was a long shot because Proctor had a wife. Even though they slept together, Procter doesn’t want to end up with Abigail, because in the 1700s everyone lived by the commandments and one of the ten was no cheating/ adultery. Abby’s plan was to get rid of Elizabeth Proctor by accusing her of witchcraft. Her plan backfired because Proctor ended up dead, and Abby couldn’t handle it and ran away( I,ii). This is a great example because Abby’s great plan to end up with Procter ended with Procter dying and Elizabeth staying alive. Abby was defeated because her plan was ruined and she had to run away.

Stress is also a factor that is larger than fear, that gets the best of an individual, for stress can lead to bad mental health. In The Crucible, when Mary Warren tried to help John Proctor, all the intense emotions of sadness and aggravation flustered her and influenced her to ditch John and go with the girls (II, i).. Mary was already bothered by the testimony, and then she knew the girls will come after her. This stress adds up and becomes unhealthy for her, which leads her to go back with the girls, where it’s safe. Students also go through an excessive amount of stress. When a student needs to start two projects that are due, the student is already stressed out about getting it done. Then, the next day they get two more projects, and now they have for projects to finish, and the student is stressed out. This is a great example of stress defeating people because the student didn’t have time the student procrastinated on the first projects and got stressed out, now they have 4 projects to start and the student is stuck and doesn’t know how or where to begin, and blames themselves for waiting so long. All this can ruin a person by damaging their self-esteem and self-worth.

When an individual constantly doubts themselves, it can easily be a bigger demotivator than fear. The character Tituba and all her problems through the plot were all started because she doubted herself. Tituba was the first one to be accused of witchcraft, and there were so many factors against her, which led her to doubt that no one was going to believe her up and finally confess (I, ii). Tituba was a slave from Barbados, which already put an easy target on her. She was also the first one to be blamed, so she had no one on her side. Tituba doubted that anyone would back her up, so she was defeated and lost all hope. It was down to death or jail, and she chose jail. Doubting yourself can be so damaging, and when an individual doubts that they can’t get that English grade higher and keeps telling themselves that it’s impossible and unattainable all day, that will defeat them and waste their time. All the doubt can get into the head of the student and defeat them more than fear can. If the student ever thought, “well maybe I can do this.” All this doubting can ruin all the motivation the student once had; The thought of getting the grade up is impossible and is getting the best of the student.

Fear doesn’t overpower a person’s self-worth and self-esteem as much as other factors such as doubt and stress. With so much going on, stress is a major part of the lives of many. Success is what people strive for, but when stress gets in the way, it can be hard to achieve. When stress adds up, it can decrease the motivation a person has and can make the person think it’s impossible to get everything done. This leads them to not do anything and taking a big step backward than forwards.