Understanding Rene Descartes?

Question

Why is his first "meditation" the "Evil Demon"? Is this concept simply veiled paranoia?

Answer 1

I think, therefore, thats doesnt exist!

Answer 2

No, not really. It's an exercise, so to speak. Descartes was looking for "justification" or if he could truly justify his perceptions as being real. In order to do this, he employed what's called "radical doubt"; hypothetically assuming that it may be possible that he is being deceived about all of his perceptions (other people, that he has a body, etc. just think "The Matrix") by an evil demon. It's from this vantage point that Descartes begins his journey in "Meditations on First Philosophy" to carefully justify his perceptions (about God, Reality, etc.) I won't go into all of it, but the first thing he is able to conclude is "ergo cogito sum" = "I think, therefore I am" thus concluding that his existence is at least confirmed and not an allusion.

Answer 3

In my opinion no. Descartes was trying to find a secure foundation on which all of his knowledge could be founded. His method of "hyperbolic" or "Cartesian" doubt, where he doubts even the most fundamental things which most of us all take for granted, such as our perception of the world etc, was supposed to get rid of beliefs/"knowledge" that could not be completely relied upon.

After employing this method of reasoning, Descartes goes on to formulate his famous "I think, therefore I am". This, he reasoned was true knowledge, for if he wasn't being deceived by the evil demon, then certainly he existed. But, even if he was being deceived by the demon, then he still must exist, for if he didn't, then there would be no-one for the demon to be deceiving. It was quite clever stuff.

From his "I think, therefore I am", Descartes then tried to establish the existence of God, and hence rule out the existence of the evil demon, although there's much debate about whether Descartes' subsequent reasoning is correct.

So, Descartes' wasn't really paranoid-he was trying to find a solid foundation for our knowledge. It may have seem a convoluted way to proceed-to assume the existence of the Evil Demon and then establish that it doesn't exist. However, mathematicians frequently assume a certain proposition and then show that it leads to a contradiction in order to show that its negation is true. This type of proof is called "reductio ad absurdum." Thus, Descartes' aim was similar to a mathematician reasoning by contradiction.

However, interestingly enough, Descartes' Evil Demon can be seen as giving rise to the problem of scepticism. As I mentioned, his argument for the existence of God is not convincing, and hence one might argue that Descartes' is left with one only true piece of knowledge, "I think, therefore I am"; that is with his existence. The sceptic could then argue that he (and all of us!) are constantly being deceived by some ghastly demon.

Indeed, the sceptic may argue that if we supposedly "know" a certain proposition (such as "I am writing"), we have to be able to rule out scenarios that are incompatible with it, such as "I am a brain in a vat on Mars", or "I am being deceived by an evil demon". The trouble is, it's not that easy to rule out (although Hilary Putnam came up with an argument against the "brain in a vat" hypothesis; see "Brains in a Vat" by Putnam)

I hope this helps!

Answer 4

If I remember correctly it is because God is not an evil deceiver. Meaning God creates for a purpose and with ideal. Man makes decisions to be bad or evil.

Answer 5

Not "the Evil Demon" but the evil deceiver.

Answer 6

His down to earth "original sin" belief. He had to add evil into his philosophy to balance the reality of his thinking process and the idea that his thinking could be corrupted.

Answer 7

1. Who says so?

2. Where are they coming from philosophically? culturally? historically?

Answer those two (or maybe four) questions and you have an answer, if not the best answer.

Answer 8

He was a drunken fart, Bruce!