Philosophy is the study of all the existing ideas concerning the truth life’s meaning and knowledge. Self, truth, and religion have defined the philosophical engagement clearly. The first issue is that the self-exists due to the existence of a soul. The second issue is that truth comes from a complete system of science, and the last issue is that the root of religion is not the God. As stated by Plato the man may not understand the actual value of true vision, and as a result, they shun the pain that they must endure in the real world hence retreat to the horrifying shadows of the cave 1 . Plato stated that science is a tool that can be used to make sense eventually though this may not be the truth. We were all curious about the foundation of the earth, and the origins of man and science have been used to provide some of the answers. By considering the prisoner in the Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave, he was fooled by what they accurately hear and see which is very different from the truth. To understand the material world and the mind plays an important role. Therefore, we believe that the mind plays a huge role to underrate a significant stage in life in addition to the function of the body.
Descartes in his Meditations analysis used three claims to set his knowledge to doubt. In the dream argument, he states that individuals tend to have perceptions that are similar to the ones they have in sensation while dreaming 2 . The question raised is, “are all our dream elements illusory?” there exists no particular sign to distinguish between the dream experiences from the waking experience; therefore, it might be the case that one is dreaming right now and all the perception are false. Realizing that understands we might not accept that all their dream’s elements are illusory, he introduces another mechanism that will help increase the scope of doubt. The dream argument as developed by Descartes can also be countered. On the one hand, it claims that there is no way for an individual to be certain that he or she is not asleep but based on his argument, he is very mistaken. The state of being dreaming varies significantly from the status of being awake in various approaches. First, the dream world lacks the aspect of continuity of the waking world while in the waking world things are unchanged. Descartes was wrong in his claim that we have perceptions that are similar to the ones they have in sensation while dreaming because the two are fundamentally different. Based on the argument of difference in the waking and dreaming world, it can be said that Descartes argument failed to warrant a degree of skepticism that he claimed hence generating more damages in philosophy than benefits.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second element is the deceiving God argument, where we all tend to have the belief that there exists the most powerful God the creator of the universe and the earth. The question raised is, “Does God deceives us?” God has the power to make us be deceived even when it comes to the mathematical knowledge issues that we see clearly. Therefore, it follows that humans are deceived in their mathematical awareness of the world’s primary structure. However, those who hold the notion that God can never deceive us; Descartes introduces the element of an evil demon in its place 3 . Despite the fact that Descartes made a persuasive case, it is evident that his arguments have failed to support skepticism to a precise degree that he claimed. On the one hand, it can be said that he was correct in arguing that the sense deceives us to some case; however, the general skepticism concerning the sense might not be warranted. To make his defense, Descartes presented various examples which he believed that his sense had deceived him. However, to be justified that senses deceive us, an individual will have to recognize when a particular error has occurred. It implies that a person would be required to distinguish between having been mistaken and being correct. Paradoxically it can be stated that while providing instances of how our senses mislead us, we are also able to see through deceptions hence undercutting the claims put forward by Descartes. All humans can be deceived, but we can also penetrate such deception. Therefore, we can only trust our senses provided we remain suitably cautious. In using the analogy, we cannot entirely trust our sense since they often fail but we can at the same time be reasonably safe when we are suitably careful. It means that Descartes’ claims do not necessarily substantiate the extent of uncertainty supposed 4 .
The evil demon argument holds that rather than presumption that God is the basis of the existing deception, we have to believe that an evil demon exists with the greater ability to deceive. The question, in this case, is, “Does the devil deceive us?”Based on this, each person has the reason to doubt what their sense tells them even in the mathematical knowledge they possess. Therefore, since our understanding source does not lie within the sense, there is the need to come up with a strategy that will rebuild the knowledge’s edifice upon material that we can easily find within our mind contents 5 . The "Cogito" argument states that even if we assume that there exists a deceiver, we all exist and everyone has the comprehension of his or her being only as a reasoning object. All external objects’ knowledge could might be forged because of the acts of the evil demon, but one cannot be deceived about his or her existence. Whilst Descartes argument on evil demon might appear to be formidable opponent, it can greatly be defused by focusing on the aspect of possibilities. It might be the case that there exists some form of a demon that often endeavors to deceive man nonetheless to assert that there exists such a creature is making a massive assertion that might demand a robust support that Descartes failed to offer. Therefore, since there exists no such support in his argument, there is thus a little reason to accept its possible existence 6 . Therefore, this argument by Descartes failed to provide a greater good to the field of philosophy since he did not support such a claim. For the evil demon to engender massive scale of uncertainty then there ought to be likelihood for it to subsist. Descartes tries to offer significant support to such an argument but failed implying that his evil demon argument substantially failed to warrant a degree of doubt that he claimed.
In conclusion, it has been established that Descartes argument in philosophy provided the least benefit since he failed to offer strong support. Based on the argument that he put forward, it can be argued that Descartes claims are so powerful and evidently well-reasoned; however, they might not be as powerful as they might appear to be to create a desired degree of doubt. It has also been argued that there is a distinction between mind and body as explained by Leibniz's law:” If two things are the same thing, they must share all the same properties.” Based on the argument of separation of mind and body, how does the two interact? The body and mind work together to achieve a certain objective. However, the two must be distinct to ensure that each focuses on a particular task.
Bibliography
Descartes, René, John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. The philosophical writings of Descartes: Volume 3, the correspondence . Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Descartes, René, and Michael Moriarty. Meditations on first philosophy: With selections from the objections and replies . Oxford University Press, 2008.
Duarte, Eduardo. "Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”." In Being and Learning , pp. 69-106. SensePublishers, 2012.
Gilson, Etienne. "Modern Philosophy: Descartes to Kant." (1963).
1 Duarte, Eduardo. "Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”." In Being and Learning , pp. 69-106. SensePublishers, 2012.
2 Descartes, René, and Michael Moriarty. Meditations on first philosophy: With selections from the objections and replies . Oxford University Press, 2008.
3 Descartes, René, and Michael Moriarty. Meditations on first philosophy: With selections from the objections and replies . Oxford University Press, 2008.
4 Descartes, René, John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. The philosophical writings of Descartes: Volume 3, the correspondence . Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
5 Gilson, Etienne. "Modern Philosophy: Descartes to Kant." (1963).
6 Duarte, Eduardo. "Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”." In Being and Learning , pp. 69-106. SensePublishers, 2012.
