DESCARTES’ EPISTEMOLOGY - Victor Lawrence. A
Introduction
In
this world each and every one of us searching for some knowledge. Because our
mind is feeling some emptiness in it. So it can be filled by only knowledge.
Then we won’t feel any emptiness in our life. In this paper Descartes also
telling about his knowledge. But he tells that knowledge can be attained only
by doubt. Now the question may arise at our heart, whether the knowledge is
certain or doubtable. He shows the way for the knowledge in this paper.
Since
he is rationalist, he doubts everything. From that he is getting something.
That is called knowledge. We can say that whatever we experience that is
knowledge. It is only the sense perception. But his epistemology is different
from empiricist. They give importance only to vision, touch, smell, hear and
taste. But through this we are getting some knowledge. We cannot attain full
knowledge. When he speaks about his basis of knowledge; he says that there
should be indubitable and certain knowledge in our mind. So he gives an
argument called cogito ergo sum to
sustain his own existence. When he speaks about his epistemology, he mostly
concentrates on doubt, because for Descartes it was the source of all
knowledge.
The property of God is the foundation for his
epistemology. So we should have doubt about the things in order to get the
certainty. His main aim is to get right knowledge. When we have the right
knowledge it will lead us to something higher. But when we posses wrong
knowledge it may lead us to distraction. So the knowledge depends upon the
persons how they are acquiring knowledge. Since we are human being we have only
limited knowledge. No one in this world have full knowledge about a particular
theory. So we should doubt everything.
We
all know that the knowledge plays a vital role in our life. Because the right
knowledge only gives the status and good respect in the society. We are not
only improving ourselves, but also companies and societies. Only the society
differentiates the people through their knowledge. Though we have much idea
about the knowledge, Descartes is strict in the point that he wants to doubt
everything. So let us ask simple question to improve our knowledge, like “who
am I?”
Chapter One
Knowledge
Rene Descartes’
(1596-1650) main aim was to show how the world of physics, the mathematically
describable world, could be reliably mapped out independently of the often
vague and misleading deliverances of our sensory organs. So here there are four
topics which are dealing about Descartes’ epistemology. He is using
methphysics, mathematics to deal with knowledge and also he gives the basics of
knowledge to give some explanations about his epistemology.
1.1Metaphysics
As Knowledge
Descartes’ orientation in philosophy was mainly
epistemological in character; it might indeed be said that his metaphysics was
founded on epistemological consideration. For the thesis for which he has
become known- the radical dualism between mind and body as instinct substances,
was found on the claim that we have a more direct access to our minds than to
our bodies.[1]
The mind is a substance whose essence is thought alone, and hence exists
entirely outside geometric categories, including place. Body is a substance whose essence is
extension alone, a geometric object without even sensory qualities like colour
or taste, which exist only in the perceiving mind. Such bodies exist as the
courses of sensation.[2]
1.1.1Tree of Knowledge
The
aim of his epistemology is summarized in one of his writings The Preface to the French Edition of the
Principles, where he wrote that “All philosophy is like a tree, whose roots
are metaphysics, whose trunk is physics, and whose branches, which grow from
this trunk, are all of the other sciences, which reduce to three principle
sciences, namely medicine, mechanics, and morals.”[3]
The Important feature of Descartes’ tree of knowledge was its hierarchical
organization. Throughout his career he held firmly to the notion that the
interconnected body of knowledge that he sought to build has a particular
order. Knowledge, for Descartes, begins in metaphysics, and metaphysics begins
with the self. From the self we arrive at God, and form God we arrive at the
full knowledge of mind and body. [4]
1.2
Mathematics as Knowledge
The progressive
development of Descartes’ thought is dominated by the idea of the unity of
human knowledge, and at the same time of its limits. The unity of mathematics
follows from the fact that identical methods, the methods of the new algebra,
can be applied as well in geometry as in arithmetic, to number as well as to
space, that is traditionally opposed to each other, discrete and continuous
quality. The application of identical methods implies or means identical acts
of the mind; which in turn reveals to us that it is not the objects numbers, lines that matter, but those acts
or, rather, operations of our mind that link the objects together, compare them
to each other, measure them by each other. So far the entire conclusion he uses
his mathematical arguments to deliver his ideas of knowledge. Through this he
proves that mathematics also is a way to understand his knowledge.
1.2.1 Intellectual Unity
Here Descartes
appeals to in explaining the method of doubt. That is he is acting like a man
who has a barrel of apples and takes them out one by one to remove any rotten
ones lest they infect the other s. this presupposition however does not serve
by itself to explain a peculiar feature of Descartes procedure. This has too
often gone unquestioned. That is while he often stated that his aim is merely
to discover what is true he actually sets himself the task of discovering
things that are indubitable and in a strong sense, certain. So the mathematics
contains very subtle devices that can greatly help to gratify our curiosity as
well as to further all the arts and lesson human toil; that moral treatises
comprise various lessons and exhortations to virtue that are highly useful.[5]
1.3 Basis of Knowledge
“I
am a conscious being; that is, a being that doubts, asserts, denies,
understands a few things, is ignorant of mind, is willing or unwilling; and
that has also imagination and sense; for as I observed before, even if the
external objects of sense and imagination should be nonentities, yet the modes
of consciousness that I call sensations and images do, I am certain, exist in
me.”[6]In
this few words he has given a list of all the things that he really knew, or at
least have so far observed that he knows. Now he would consider more carefully
whether there may be other things in me that in have not yet discovered. He is
certain that he is a conscious being.
1.3.1
Clear and Distinct
In
this primary knowledge there is only a clear and distinct perception of what he
asserts. Now this would not be enough to make him certain as to the truth of
the matter if it could ever happen that something clearly and distinctly
perceived in this should be false. So it looks as though he could lay down the
general rule. Whatever he perceived was clearly and distinctly is true.[7]
The chief problem of the ideas is taken from external objects by him. He says
that the nature has taught him. And he says that, they did not depend on him.
He also gets them even if he did not with. For example, he feels heat. So
thinks that this sensation or idea of heat comes to him from an object without
knowledge of him.[8]
1.4 The Seeds of Knowledge
The
seeds of knowledge are in us. That is the deep reason why the Cartesian
endeavor is not a chimera, the reason why we can and must attempt to
disencumber our reason of all the content that it may have received from
outside in the course of life. These ‘seeds of knowledge’ or as he will call
them later this rediscovering the deep intuition of Plato, ‘innate ideas,’
‘eternal truths,’ ‘true and immutable natures,’ purely intellectual essences
that are utterly independent of the contents given to us by sense perceptions,
concepts that the rigorous catharsis of radical, methodical doubt that does
reveal in our soul; these are the firm and sure foundations through which we
can also base our judgment.[9]
1.4.1
Sunt
in Nobis Semina Scientiae
Descartes tells us, sunt in nobis semina scientiae that is
seeds of knowledge are in us. This means that our mind is not a tabula rasa, which has to receive
everything from outside by the channel of perception; on the contrary, we have
in ourselves the foundations which are the principle of science and knowledge,
which is the reason why our thought turning back upon itself will be able to
develop in a luminous order and in perfect security those long chains of
reasons that the discourse seals to us about.[10]The
foundations and the method of science are firmly established. But it is human
science and it is on human foundations that we are building it up. Human
science is science of the weak and in any case of a finite being necessarily
has limitations.
Further
still and on a deeper level we have based our science of the seeds that are
found in our minds on the simple and primitive ideas that present themselves to
our mind so clearly and distinctly that we have no occasion to doubt them. Here
Descartes gives the very good explanation to his epistemology. This is not only
scientific but also experimental science. Because he has experienced his
knowledge. So courageously he is able to give ideas and theories about his
philosophy of knowledge.
Chapter Two
Descartes’
Epistemology
In this chapter Descartes tries to show his
epistemology by using different kinds of metaphysical attitudes. For that he
used principles of psychology that is the mind and he connects with the body.
He is proving that by telling that the pineal gland is connected with
psychology and other substances. Because the essence of the substance is
thought. So here he is proving his epistemology by telling the existence of
real substances as well as of real qualities.
2.1 Doubt
We
should attend only to those objects of which our minds seem capable of having
certain and indubitable cognition.[11]
But though certainty was central to Descartes, the path to certainty begins
with doubt. In Meditation I entitled what can be called into doubt. Descartes
says that “I realized that it was necessary once in the course of my life to
demolish everything completely and start against right from the foundations it
I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and
likely to last.”[12]
Following that he presents a series of three skeptical arguments designed to
eliminate his current beliefs in preparation for replacing them with
certainties. The strategy is to undermine the beliefs not one by one but by
undermining the basic principles on which they rest.[13]
2.1.1
Doubt as Corner Stone
When
we doubt a proposition we neither believe nor disbelieve it. Rather we suspend
judgment regarding it as an open question whether it is true. Doubt can thus be
a skeptical attitude. Descartes made doubt the corner stone of a philosophical
method. In order to place our knowledge on foundations which are genuinely
secure we should try to doubt all our beliefs retaining them only if they are
absolutely indubitable. Ordinary empirical beliefs are threatened by the
possibility that I am dreaming as are even logical principles, because I might
be deceived by an evil demon. Unless I can eliminate these possibilities I
cannot escape the suspicion that all my beliefs are infected by unnoticed
error. Few have been convinced by Descartes’ claims about when doubt is
impossible and many have questioned his claims about the desirability of trying
to extend doubt as far as possible.[14]
2.2 Cogito Argument
Cogito Ergo Sum is the formulation of the Latin
word. The meaning is ‘I think therefore I am.’ From this cornerstone of
self-evident certainty Descartes derived all philosophical propositions. The
idea of God he argued implies the real existence of God. No finite or imperfect
being like man could have produced the idea of an infinite or perfect being.
Hence only god could have revealed it to man. In as much as the body can be so
easily doubted it is clear that the two are radically distinct. The body as
such is subject to mechanistic explanation. Animals being without rational
minds are strictly to be considered as machines automatons subject to
instinctive reflexes.[15]
2.2.1
Cogito Ergo Sum
In
our youth Descartes held we acquire many prejudices which interfere with the
proper use of our reason. Consequently later we must reject everything. We
believe and start anew. hence meditations begins with a series of arguments
intended to cast doubt upon everything firmly believed and culminating in the
hypothesis of an all- deceiving evil genius a deceive to keep former beliefs
from returning. The rebuilding of the
world begins with the discovery of the self through the ‘Cogito Argument.’ a
self known only as a thinking thing and known independently of the senses.
Within this thinking self Descartes discovers an idea of God in idea of
something so perfect that it could not have been caused in us by anything with
less perfection than God Himself.[16]
2.3 Idea of God
“If
I had the power of concerning my own existence, I should have had a
proportionately greater power of giving myself the perfections that I lack: for
they are only attributes of substances whereas I am a substance. But I do not
have the power of giving myself these perfections; otherwise I should already
possess them. Therefore I do not have the power of conversing myself.”[17]
The arguments begins by examine the thought contained in my mind distinguishing
between the formal reality of an idea and its objective reality. The formal
reality of anything is just it s actual existence and the degree of its
perfection. The formal reality of an idea is this actual existence and degree
of perfection as a mode of mind.[18]
2.3.1
Existence of God
Descartes
argues to suggest that I have been in existence always and thus I do not need a
creator since it takes as much power to sustain me from moment to moment as it
does to create me anew. I could not have created myself because then I would
have been able to give myself all the perfections that I so evidently lack. My
parents cannot be my creator properly speaking since they have neither the
ability to create a thinking thing nor to sustain it once created. Finally I
could not have been created by another creator of lesser perfection than God,
since I have an idea of God an idea I could not acquire from a lesser begin.
From this Descartes concludes “That the mere fact that I exist and have within
me an idea of a most perfect being provides a very clear proof that God indeed
exists.”[19]
2.4 Innate Ideas
“I
have accurately observed that there are very few things that one knows with
certainty respecting corporeal objects that there are many more
which are known to us respecting the human mind and yet more still
regarding God himself. So that I shall now without difficulty abstract my
thoughts from the consideration of imaginable objects and carry them to those
which being withdrawn from all contact with matter are purely intelligible.”[20]
The central importance of God in Descartes system lies in the deity’s role as
guarantor of the reliability of human cognition. Human often go astray in their
thinking. But this is because they rashly jump in and give their assent to
propositions whose truth is not clear. But provides they use their God-given
power of reason correctly assenting only to what they clearly and distinctly
perceive they can be sure of avoiding error.[21]
2.5 Distinction Between Body and Mind
The
imagination involves a certain application of the cognitive faculty to a body
while intellection does not involve any such application or effort. So that
when you simply and without trouble perceive the triangle as a figure
consisting of these angles you say that that is an act of understanding. But
when not without some effort on your part you have that figure as it were
present and investigate it examine it and recognize and discern its three
angles distinctly and severally they you imagine.[22]
The so called mind- body problem which continues to engage the attention of
philosophers today bears witness to the compelling future of the issues with
which Descartes wrestled.[23]
He
says that body is perfect machines. It is controlled by the mind and rational willpower.
Bodily hygiene is important and also there is equally a need of a mental
hygiene. Because it is based on true knowledge of the psychological factors. So
it is all based on our training of the good sense. But it depends on the
knowledge of truths of metaphysics. It includes the knowledge of God. So
Descartes concludes that everything is depends upon our mind and values we
have.
Chapter Three
Contributions and Contradictions
There are so many
philosophers who are really giving voice to Descartes including Spinoza. But
there are so many philosophers who are raising voice against Descartes. But
Descartes did not lose his originality. Because he was called as father of
modern philosophy. That is the case he was not opposed by so many philosophers.
Though some of the philosophers may be against to Descartes. Since his base of
knowledge was so strong still he is in the top among the modern philosophers.
3.1 Spinoza and Descartes
Benedict Spinoza’s
(1632-1677) originality is now here more appeared them in the difference from
Descartes which is apparent in his theory of knowledge. Descartes is a deeply
inconsistent thinker in that he declares clarity and distinctness to be the
criteria of truth. But still seeks guarantee that his clear and distinct ideas
do in fact correspond to what is the case in the realm of physical bodies.
The inconsistency resides in the attempt both to find a guarantee for
the truth of an idea in the idea itself and its relationship with other
ideas yet to mean by truth roughly a sort of correspondence to an extra
reality. This inconsistency could be avoided either by abounding the criteria
of clarity and distinctions.[24]
3.1.1 Cartesian’s Notion
Spinoza‘s originality
lies in the way in which he uses Cartesian notion of combination criticizing
each in the light of the other. From Descartes he accepts the deductive ideal.
In his Cartesian preoccupation with necessary truth Spinoza neglects the kind
of logical investigation of Aristotle.[25]
Spinoza has no need of a proof of the existence of God apart from no proof of
the existence of the on substance. But in his demonstration that to perceive
the necessity of its existence how reproduces a form of the ‘Ontological
Argument’ which Descartes used to prove the existence of God. That is the essence
of God entails its existence. Moreover he who does not rest his case for the
identity of God and nature upon the deduction of the necessity of there being
only one substance.[26]
3.2 Conditions of Indubitability
Towards the end of
the First Meditation Descartes
invokes to distinction between what is indubitable and what is open to one
reasonable doubt. In defense of his decision to regard as dubitable many
propositions are unreasonable to doubt. Harry G. Frankfurt says that, “I cannot
at present yield too much to distrust, since it is not now a question of action
but only of meditation and of knowledge.”[27]
In their usual concerns men are not often required to decide whether a
proposition is indubitable as distinct from deciding whether there is any
reason to doubt it. Questions of indubitability are theoretical. They concern
only the relation between a proposition and the evidence or ground of it. And
take no account of the other concrete circumstances in which a proposition is
evaluated.[28]
3.3 Kant’s Argument
Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804) argues that only three ways of proving God’s existence on the
speculative plane. He says that first we can precede entirely a priori and
maintain that the very idea of God is such that ‘God could not exist.’
This is the method of the ontological argument. Second we can move from
the bare fact that the world exists to the position that God is it s ultimate
cause as in the first cause. Finally we can base our contention as the
particular constitution of the world as in the physical and theological proof.
Kant argues that all three types of proof are fallacious.[29]
Descartes formulation on the existence of God is vulnerable to Kant’s
objection. Because he says that I am holding the existence to be perfection it
assumes that existence is a property or characteristic since perfection like a
power or knowledge or moral goodness is a type of property.[30]
God’s existence is not a property for in saying that a thing exists one is not
describing it in any way.
3.4 Russell and Hume’s Argument
Bertrand Russell
(1872-1970) has objections to the occurrence of the word ‘I’ in the
premise ‘I am thinking.’ According to him Descartes has no right to the premise
‘I am thinking’ but only to the weaker claim, there is a thought. The premise
of cogito is put forward as indubitable but according to him ‘I am thinking’ is
not indubitable. It is open to doubt whether there is an ‘I’ which thinks and
is not identical with these thoughts. David Hume (1711-1776) is also one of the
philosophers who challenge this. Since the ideas are open to doubt it is
illegitimate for the world I to appear in the premise of the cogito.[31]
Descartes responses to these challenges first of all there are good reason for
using the word I in the premise I am thinking. The reason is that thinking like
green is a property and if there is a property there must be something which
has this property. That which has a property Descartes calls it as a substance.[32]
3.5 Personal Views
Descartes’
epistemology starts with doubt. Through the doubt he comes to know the truth.
But he should have the concept to know the truth. The concept did not come all
of a sudden. Reason alone cannot make the concept. Sense is the starting point.
Without experience we cannot make the concept fully. For example we cannot
doubt our mother. We cannot deny the fact even though we had been misled. From
the childhood itself we were brought up like that. But later if we come to know
that she is not our mother, we may reason out. If we reflect our mother or
father in our face we cannot doubt it. God’s creation is unique. So everyone is
unique.
3.5.1 God
When he proves the
existence of God he says that we all have the concept of God. God is a perfect
being. I am imperfect being. Then how we can have the idea of perfect being? Either
we should be also a perfect being or else we should not have the concept of
perfect being. But here he shows the
contradiction between perfect being and imperfect being. We may have the idea
of God. But that idea did not come all of a sudden. We were insisted that there
is God and we were told about His love, grace etc. When he speaks about
Ontological Argument he says that there won’t be mountain without valleys. But
always there won’t be mountain with valleys. The earth may be flat in some of
the places. So his proves for the existence of God is somewhat contradictory to
us.
3.5.2 Man
When we speak of Descartes philosophy of man,
he says that those who think they can be considered as man. Of course mind may
be the important one in man. But it gets its fullness only in the body. So both
are equal. To express our feelings though we don’t use mind but only the parts
of body. Without body no emotions can be expressed outside. Our appetites,
emotions and senses are all first go to the mind then mind insists the body to
express its feelings through words. When we think of ‘Pineal Gland Theory’ it
cannot unite body and soul. Soul is something extraordinary. It is
metaphysical. We can not join physical with metaphysical. Of course there will
not be inferior and superior among body and soul. Both are equal.
To conclude, it is
proved that he is the father of modern philosophy. Because he was taken as a
leader by some of the philosophers. His own ideas and epistemology were taken
as the model for other philosophers. Through this he himself proves that his
innate ideas, idea of God and other knowledge were true. He was criticized by
other philosophers he did not give up his hope. Thus he proved that he is the
father of modern philosophy.
Conclusion
Descartes’
epistemology has helped us to acquire some knowledge about something. In this
paper he has explained his knowledge by basis of knowledge, foundations of
knowledge, cogito argument, innate ideas, existence of God, the distinction
between body and mind. Because the knowledge does not depend upon only our
mind, but also body. Body and mind is interconnected. His theory of pineal
gland may be wrong. But his theory of knowledge is certain.
In
this paper he clearly explains that one has to get knowledge through doubt.
Because the doubt makes one to think to find out the reason. Then only we can
get correct knowledge. Since he is rationalist, he says that only by reasoning
we can attain right knowledge. He says that those who think they are considered
as human being. Without thinking we won’t be considered as not even being.
Those who think they have the power to live in this world. Because if any thing
is not useful to us we just throw it out. It is applicable to the human beings
also.
So
through this paper Descartes helps us to acquire right knowledge. We already
have some ideas in us. But those things cannot be considered as right knowledge
always. He is telling the existence of God as example for innate ideas. The
idea of perfect being is in imperfect being. So he gives so many examples to
insist that there is an innate idea. When we are trying to understand his
epistemology there may be some difficulties. Because he is not giving any ideas
from outside of the world. He is asking to realize ourselves. For example the
idea of God is in us. We don’t realize the idea which is within us. We are not
able to understand fully.
Of
course this is the best help to face our own problem in the future. Because the
days are flowing like anything. So the people flying like anything. In that
speed some of us forget to think in most of the time. So from this Descartes gives
a clue to find ourselves in the world. We should be with the people but we
should lead the people not as a guide but as a friend like Descartes.
Bibliography
Primary
Source
a. books
Descartes, Rene. Descartes’ Philosophical Writings. Edited
and Translated by. Australia: Nelson’s University Paperbacks, 1954.
Second Sources
Marnard
Hutching, Robert. Great Books of the
Western World.
London: The University of Chicago, 1952.
Thomson, Garrett. On Descartes.
New Delhi: Cengage Learning India Private Ltd., 2008.
[1]
D.W. Hamlyn, “History of Metaphysics,” in The
Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New York: Oxford University, 1995), 557.
[2]
Daniel Garber, “Rene Descartes” in Concise
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2000ed, 200.
[3]
Garber, “Rene Descartes,” 4.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Garber, “Rene Descartes,” 10.
[6]
Ibid., 76.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Elizabeth Anscombe, Descartes’
Philosophical Writings, (Australia: Nelson’s University Paperbacks 1954),
79.
[9] Descartes, Philosophical Writings, xxix.
[10]
Ibid., xxviii.
[11]
Garber, “Rene Descartes,” 6.
[12]
Ibid.
[13]
Ibid.
[14]
J. Cottingham, “Rene Descartes,” in The
Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New York: Oxford University, 1995), 205.
[15]
L.J. Beck, “Rene Descartes,” in Encyclopedia
Britannica, 15th ed, 601.
[16]
Garber, “Rene Descartes,” 200.
[17]
Robert Marnard Hutching, Great Books of
the Western World, (London: The University of Chicago,
1952),
132.
[18]
Garber, “Rene Descartes,” 4.
[19]
Ibid., 9.
[20]
Hutching, Western World, 89.
[21]
J. Cottingham, “Rene Descartes,” 190.
[22]
Hutching, Western World, 199.
[23]
J. Cottingham, “Rene Descartes,” 191.
[24]
Alasdair Macintyre, “Benedict Spinoza,” in Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, 1972ed, 537.
[25]
Ibid., 532.
[26]
Macintyre, “Spinoza,” 533.
[27]
Ibid., 413.
[28]
Ibid.
[29]
Ibid., 316.
[30]
W.H. Walsh, “Kant,” in Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, 316.
[31]
Garrett Thomson, On Descartes (New
Delhi: Cengage Learning India Private Ltd., 2008), 41.
[32]
Ibid., 42.
