Descartes’s Method of Doubt
According to (Kemerling, 2017), Descartes basic approach on the Method of Doubt is working towards defeating skepticism. He suggests that one should begin by doubting everything that has been presented as the truth. The truth not regarding the evidence provided for certain intellects and cultural beliefs, but the core of reasoning itself. If the truth then survives the challenge of doubt, then it can be considered as the truly believable truth and the clear, substantial ground for knowledge. The first step that doubts every truth is a broad exercise that consists of three levels as presented by Descartes. His immediate goal being to raise grounds for doubt and defeat skepticism, and allow the truth presented to have no doubt.
The first level, perceptual illusion, points out that the truth tabled by the senses about the outside world could be wrong after all. Descartes argues that the first impression provided by the external world not always correct. For instance, what one hears first may not be the right thing. Therefore, he suggests that human beings should not trust the first thing they observe as the truth. According to Descartes, (Kemerling, 2017), ordinarily, people adjust to their incorrect observations by referring to correct ones. However, since it is hard to know with certainty which of these observations is true, then it is conceivable to doubt the information presented by our senses.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second level is the dream problem, presents another method of doubt involving dreams. Descartes argues that since most of what we dream cannot be differentiated from what we experience, then it is possible to view the real world as a result of our dreams. If so then what we experience as the truth could just be a creation of a person’s imagination hence creating a chance to doubt that the real world exists. The form of doubting presented here then brings forth the third and final level.
A Deceiving God, the second level presents aspects of the real world that cannot be subject to doubt such as color and mathematical truths. Therefore, Descartes then introduced the third level. Here, he introduces religion and suggests that what if human beings believed in a God, but this divinity was there to lie. His main point is not to merely indicate that there are a Godforcing people to believe in lies. However, he tries to bring out the point that one could believe in truth, however, the divinity could then decide to change that truth to become a lie (Kemerling, 2017). Therefore supporting that it is possible for a person to doubt everything presented to him as the truth.
Nye’s Summary
According to Bill Nye, in his article interview, his issue is that philosophy does not always give an answer that is conclusive an answer that goes against common sense. His doubts are based primarily on the presented idea that philosophy presents about reality being unreal. The idea that reality is not real and that our senses and feelings could be a lie does not sit well with Nye. He believes that things a human being interacts with on a daily basis are real to him or her. If someone, for instance, feels hot, touches something, hears or smells something, these experiences are a reality that is faithful to them.
Nye suggests that all philosophy does take someone in circles without giving clear answers regarding some of the questions it presents. The questions remain relevant for some time but lose the relevance when they cannot be answered, and the person is lost in a pool of endless questions. According to his interview, (Nye, 2017), he suggests that human beings invented philosophy. Therefore the truth that is asked for in philosophy is thetruth human beings seek. Truth has limitations, it can only be known to some extent, and some things within this truth remain beyond comprehension, and these things should not matter.
Descartes’s method of doubt is put in place to deal with skepticism such as that presented by Bill Nye. Therefore the challenge that Nye has in regards to philosophy could be applied to the three levels presented above. Although he is against the whole process of truth seeking, Nye could consider that his reality is a fiction of his imagination and that his belief for instance that the sun must rise is a truth as presented by the divinity that is God. With the development of doubt, then his way of thinking will be challenged, and he will seek out the truth, regardless of what it might be, using other avenues.
Descartes reply to Nye
As a philosopher, Descartes would urge Nye to allow a sense of doubt on his belief. The feeling of doubt is presented as a challenge to ask the questions that Nye, in this case, is avoiding. While most of the questions might not have straight forward answers, they present an argument of what reality is. Descartes would probably challenge Nye by pointing out that while the questions might take him in unending circles with no answer, they challenge an individual not to take things as they are presented.
Descartes would argue that the limitations mentioned by Nye are only put there by a person’s limits. That a sense of doubt created, allowsone to think beyond the said limitation, causing the person to seek out more on the truth within his environment. It is not only applicable to the current argument on reality but to every other aspect of life in general.
Descartes will challenge Nye’s way of thinking as being a comfortable ideology. He would say that Nye is stuck to his way of thinking and his lack of need to know more because it is what he is comfortable. He would argue that philosophy requires one to get out of his comfort zone and think outside the parameters presented to him. He would challenge Nye to dare to be controversial by going against what society as a whole considers reasonable. Philosophy forces one to go beyond the norm, the things that are said to be unreachable seems reachable when we try to answer the questions presented by philosophy.
Argument
My argument is for Descartes, while Nye has a point that most of the things are unfathomable and should be left as such if human beings do not ask questions, then life offers no challenges. The issues presented by Descartes provide one with a basis of curiosity. If reality as we know it is challenged, then our minds are provoked to seek then out things beyond what we see and experience. In my opinion, this makes us better human beings, we can look beyond the surface with everything we experience.
Apart from reality, we canquestion the experiences we have, the things taught to us throughout generations and the truth as is presented to us. Some of the things we know as true are so because we have adapted them from people who taught us the meaning of reality. Some of our realities are formulated by the ideologies presented to us, and in most cases, we are not able to challenge these realities, we are just expected to follow blindly. For instance, if we are born into a culture that believes in something as absurd as human sacrifice, that becomes our reality until a time when we are exposed to another form of reality.
When our current set of reality is challenged, we can then to seek out the truth. If a person is presented with two conflicting opinions, one that they have believed is the truth and another portrayed as a second truth, mental conflict arises. The person is now challenged to open up his or her mind to the idea that what he already knows could be a limitation of his environment and that venturing into other realities presents other forms of truth.
Reply to the argument
From a naysayer perspective, one would argue that Descartes does not offer any answers. Instead, he puts us into an uncertain environment. Through the creation of constant doubt, Descartes allows the society or the people who borrow into his way of thinking, to become paranoid. If a person is always asking questions and doubting the answers presented to them, they develop a paranoid personality. The lack of belief forces them to do away with trusting anything they experience right from their existence.
The idea that a person should doubt his own reality and existence is in itself an irrational ideology. If one does not exist then why ask the questions in the first place, why not continue in his non-existence without necessarily seeking out any truth. If the individual does not exist, what is the truth, does truth exist in his lack of existence. With this type of argument, the naysayer would consider the argument presented foolish. The more questions one asks, the more one get lost, with the doubt created, the person is constantly in search of something that is unattainable therefore missing out on the actual important things within his existence.
References
Kemerling, G. (2017). Descartes: Overcoming Doubt . Philosophypages.com . Retrieved 15 March 2017, from http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4c.htm
Nye, B. (2017). Hey Bill Nye, 'Does Science Have All the Answers or Should We Do Philosophy Too?' - Video . Big Think . Retrieved 15 March 2017, from http://bigthink.com/videos/bill-nye-on-philosophy
