Help with descartes?

Question

I need some textual evidence to support the idea that descartes is not a skeptic but is using skeptical methods in order to show the existince of absolute knowledge. I understand that he isnt a skeptic but is attempting to beat the skeptics at their own game. I need to use information in descartes Mediataions only. General ideas are great but quotes or passages would be the best.

Answer 1

I'm not sure what you are talking about. In many ways, Descartes was the first truly skeptical philosopher. If you mean "skeptic" as in "skeptical of Descartes work" then, Descartes is not this kind of skeptic. Often, "Skeptics argue that Descartes is wrong because ... blah blah blah" is in no way meant to mean that Descartes was not skeptic. Descartes used methodological skepticism to build a philosophical foundation to serve during the beginnings of the scientific revolution. He was in the 17th century, and he basically said "everything that came before me is bullsheet" and, starting from there, said "i think, therefore i exist." He had a circular argument that "proved" God existed, but it is possible that he was just saying this to not get hanged. In other words, he may have kept his aetheism secret (he was in the 17th century, the first well-known, post-Greek, openly aethiest philosopher was Hume in the 18th century).

At the same time, obviously he isn't an ABSOLUTE skeptic, someone who says "nothing exists, i don't believe anything." Either way, I think of him as the most skeptical "well-known philosopher" of all time.

I think your paper will be very difficult to write. You should at least formulate a backup thesis. Often times, it is good to find 10 or so quotes that you REALLY like & highlight them. Then, read the quotes, and try to find a thesis that uses a few of the quotes. After you have found a thesis that has a reasonable about of strong evidence, you can search for other evidence, or ways of linking your existing evidence, to give you ideas on the body of the paper. It seems sorta backwards, but it is better to find the parts of the work you really like, then directly come to your own conclusion that you want to argue.

Answer 2

Existentialist Wars: Episode 1 Desecration of Descartes Long ago in some shithole far away, a man pronounced his existence by uttering that his very thought proved it. And this mighty phrase was uttered again and again, and frequently was spoken out of the context from which it came. So frequent was its use that the phrase became a Nemesis of its own, slashing down the innocent musings of those who did not wish to think in the tyranny of those wielding it. Then came the heretics of existentialism with their defiant message of individuals contriving an existence of their own. When examining the sentence " I think , therefore I am", why is thought the requirement for existence? Do we need go past the "I"? As many existentialists have noted, we all come from states of having no thought (Sartre's "Being of Nothingness" ). In that framework,every individual carves out an existence from nothing, a process of autonomy. I believe the Descartes quote sounds rational to many who hear it for the first time and then repeat it ad nauseum for others. They do this without understanding the context in which it was used or even challenging the idea. The challenge is to get the people who use the sentence to consider the alternatives (and an entire body of philosophy is one heck of an alternative ) to thinking as a justification of existence. Not looking for a "best answer" here, just griping.

Answer 3

It may be said that anyone who doubts the truth of a description is a skeptic, and if questions, is using a method of the skeptical. Of course Descartes questions and doubts, but there is a further character to his reasoning: a malignant being:

"6. But [as to myself, what can I now say that I am], since I suppose there exists an extremely powerful, and, if I may so speak, malignant being, whose whole endeavors are directed toward deceiving me ? Can I affirm that I possess any one of all those attributes of which I have lately spoken as belonging to the nature of body ? After attentively considering them in my own mind, I find none of them that can properly be said to belong to myself. To recount them were idle and tedious. Let us pass, then, to the attributes of the soul. The first mentioned were the powers of nutrition and walking; but, if it be true that I have no body, it is true likewise that I am capable neither of walking nor of being nourished. Perception is another attribute of the soul; but perception too is impossible without the body; besides, I have frequently, during sleep, believed that I perceived objects which I afterward observed I did not in reality perceive. Thinking is another attribute of the soul; and here I discover what properly belongs to myself. This alone is inseparable from me. I am--I exist: this is certain; but how often? As often as I think; for perhaps it would even happen, if I should wholly cease to think, that I should at the same time altogether cease to be. I now admit nothing that is not necessarily true. I am therefore, precisely speaking, only a thinking thing, that is, a mind (mens sive animus), understanding, or reason, terms whose signification was before unknown to me. I am, however, a real thing, and really existent; but what thing? The answer was, a thinking thing. [L][F]"

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Meditation2.html

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/meditations.html

Answer 4

"Cogito, ergo sum" which means "I think therefor I am" was his big quote. It means that the ability to think makes someone exist. You can only be sure that you exist using this because you only think for yourself not anyone else.