i need to know the inconsistencies or flaws in solipsism or caretesian skepticism. but i cant use any type of materialist or emierical evidence. i need self refuting flaws within the two ideas.
2007-04-05 09:49:19 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The point of your paper is to make you think for yourself, not jump online and have the answers handed to you.
2007-04-05 12:14:27 · answer #1 · answered by jtrusnik 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just a couple of quick notes to help you on your way:
Within Cartesian skepticism, it required that you be skeptical of anything beyond that which you a "clear and distinct" idea of. That was Descartes criteria for holding things to be true - it is flawed because you can have a "clear and distinct" idea of what a unicorn is, but that does not make it exist.
As far as Solipsism, that is a position that calls into doubt the existence of the external world and ends up being a position where only perception exists. Solipsism is flawed on at least the grounds that if perception is the faculty of awareness, can a faculty exist apart from something having that faculty? Inherently there must be "something" there having that perception.
Got it? Hope that gets you started in the right direction.
2007-04-05 19:58:34 · answer #2 · answered by dremblewedge 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't remember much about Cartesian skepticism but I do recall reading his Meditations. He contrasts the mind with the body calling the body divisible and the mind indivisible.
But then later he calls the mind a thing that thinks, understand, affirms, denies ect. He just divided the different tasks of the mind after proclaiming the mind indivisible.
Anyway this might be an inconsistency worth pointing out. My Intro to Western Professor seemed to think so when I brought it up in class one day. At least it might get you started.
2007-04-05 17:14:29 · answer #3 · answered by K 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please ask your question in English. LOL.
Good luck.
2007-04-05 16:54:50 · answer #4 · answered by JRBisme 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋