Monday, October 4, 2010
When the Walls Come Tumbling Down
Descartes realizes that some of the beliefs he thought were true turned out to be false. In the pursuit of knowledge he seeks to tear down his previous beliefs and build them up again upon a firm foundation. In other words, he is engaged in a foundational project, searching for a class of beliefs that themselves are not in need of justification in order to justify his other beliefs. But is this quest a misguided one? Do such beliefs exist? If not, does that mean that knowledge is impossible? Or is there some other way to justify our beliefs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Descartes' method of foundationalism is deeply flawed because it is focused on finding truths that do not require proof. This is not possible as every argument requires proof. Descartes does manage to logically and coherently prove that he exists, but he is incapable of showing that it is innate knowledge. Descartes primary argument may have been successful, but a large portion of his work after proving his existence, is plagued with faulty logic and assumptions that cannot be proved or argued with and are thus invalid. His foundation is reasonable, but almost everything that comes after that is based on the notion of god. Using god as reasoning is really taking the easy way out, because the argument for god’s existence is solely faith based, and there is no logical reasoning behind it. Simultaneously the argument for god’s existence cannot be proven wrong because faith is not based on logic. Descartes manages to show that there are absolute truths, but he completely fails in his quest to show that truths that do not need proof exist, and the arguments that he bases off of absolute truths are faulty at best. Even so this does not say that knowledge is unattainable. Knowledge about what one perceives can be true due to the definition of perception. In order to attain knowledge, one must combine that which they perceive with reason, prior experience, and the thoughts of others in order to come up with knowledge that pertains to our lives. For example, I cannot know for certain that I am typing on the computer, but I can be certain that I think that I am typing and writing a blog. In my opinion it is not really important to deal with the hypothetical notion of what if that which we perceive is not real. What is important is to deal with the knowledge that pertains to that which we perceive and to try and live our lives based off of this knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI think the foundational approach to philosophy is fundamentally flawed. It’s simply impossible to think that there are basic beliefs that don’t need to be justified. In essence, philosophy is stating your beliefs, justifying them, waiting for criticism, and then justifying them again. Descartes is skipping the part where he justifies his beliefs. Every belief needs to be justified. If it’s not, nothing you say afterwards can be taken as true. He is basically just assuming a premise is true just to support a conclusion. For instance, let’s say I can solve every philosophical question if I only assume I live in New York, except I don’t live in New York. If I can convince people that me living in New York is an unjustifiable truth, then they will believe everything else I say. But you can’t take anything I say as the truth because I started off with a lie. Descartes must justify every belief he makes, otherwise anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s really against the very nature of philosophy to assume any foundational truths. This is not to say that attaining knowledge is impossible. Knowledge is not just belief; it’s that extra step of justifying beliefs. In order to have knowledge you have to be sure that what you believe is true, and the only way to do that is to justify your beliefs. I can’t say that I believe I live in New York, so therefore I know I live in New York. I must justify my belief by proving its true. Gaining knowledge is not impossible, but you need to justify beliefs to obtain it. Therefore, Descartes will never be able to gain knowledge with his foundational approach. By saying that certain beliefs don’t need to be proven, he is implying that he does not know how to prove them, and therefore can’t obtain knowledge.
ReplyDeleteDescartes seeks to find a set of foundational beliefs to serve as a point for which all other arguments can stem from, but I don’t believe that such beliefs truly exist. In order for a belief to be considered a foundational belief they must be inherently true without a need to be proven. The closes Descartes comes to finding a foundational belief is with the Cogito, however this argument is circular and no other belief can be proven by it. On the surface the Cogito may appear to be inherently true but when analyzed further, I found this argument to be a tautology. The basic argument of the Cogito is I think therefore I must exist, but in order to prove that you are thinking, you must exist and in order to prove that you exist, you must think. This explanation reveals the circular nature of the Cogito. Furthermore the Cogito cannot lead to any further arguments because it only proves existence and any proceeding argument can just be disproven by the idea that God is a deceiver or that all of our perceptions are fabricated. The existence of a foundational belief is a falsity because I belief that there is nothing that is inherently true; arguments must be proven true. My explanation of the Cogito is an example that even the most fundamental arguments are circular in nature. There is no way to prove something from absolutely nothing.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don’t believe in foundationalism I still believe that it is important to study knowledge and epistemology. Knowledge is only impossible if we abandon our quest for it. In searching for knowledge we gain understanding, and even in our failure we get closer to truth. In my opinion coherentism is a better mechanism for finding knowledge. Coherentism is of the school of thought that ideas must be coherent and that each part of an idea must fit together in order for the idea to be true or sound. This theory seems to be preferable to foundationalism because logically if all parts of an argument or idea fit together coherently then the idea logically follows as coherent and thus true.
If we manage to find any foundational beliefs, all we are going to be able to prove is that everything we know is consistent with them, not that they are in themselves true. For example, axioms in geometry are taken to be true without proof. We do not, however, know that they are in fact true. That would be as far as we can get with any foundational beliefs. We would have to be willing to accept something without proof, an idea that most of us, including Erica, Robert, and Michael disagree with.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, the statement that all beliefs require justification and proof would lead us to logically conclude that none of us know anything at all. Everything we know today in math is based on a few axioms, or foundational beliefs. When we have used math to describe motion, land men on the moon, build cities and skyscrapers and find a few very basic laws of physics, can we truly believe ourselves when we say that the few axioms that led us to all these things aren’t good enough and need to be proven? I would conclude, therefore, that foundationalism isn’t completely dead yet.
I understand that the quest for foundational beliefs is a seductive one. The idea that everything boils down to a few simple laws is attractive. I think, though, that our minds are too tainted and colored by perception to be completely separated from it and that this makes foundationalism a very difficult philosophy to pursue. For example, I am sure that we all have a hard time believing that the wax that Descartes mentioned or, in fact, any objects that we encounter in our daily lives do not exist. By the Cogito, however, we do not know for certain that it does exist – all we know is that we, because we think, exist. Our minds rebel against the fact that everything we perceive and all the reasons why we work, feel pain, succeed, and suffer, are fabrications of either our or someone else’s imagination. I almost doubt that we are intellectually capable of finding any foundational beliefs because of the necessity of separating the mind from perception; almost everything we know about ourselves and the world is based on perception. Therefore, I would argue that finding foundational beliefs is theoretically viable but in reality, nearly impossible.
Descartes' method is without a doubt a misguided one. I belive that it is impossible to try to prove something that doesn't need to be proven. A belief is an individual thing. If you as a person believe in something then that is your belief and no one needs to justify that to you. Only you need to justify that to yourself and there is no specific way in doing that.
ReplyDeleteWith this whole notion of knowledge I believe that knowledge is another one of those things that everyone looks at in a different light. Knowledge is something that is made up of a variety of factors including things such as how an individual's life is lived. With that being said knowledge is not impossible. Maybe is you follow Descartes' argument then knowledge may not be obtainable but in my opinion knowledge is something that is that far out of an individual's reach. In addition knowledge is derived from thought which comes from thinking but according to Descartes thinking can only happen if we exist. I must say that Descartes does do a thorough job of proving that he exist but as I said before he cannot take a set of foundational beliefs and expect to create a solid argument around that.
All in all Descrates begins with a bad premise to his argument. Only the individual is truly capable of justifying their own beliefs and none of his arguments can change that.
I believe that Descartes’ idea of trying to find foundational truths is doomed to failure because the initial idea of finding beliefs that don’t need to be justified is cracked. Contrary to these ideas forming a firm foundation of which the rest of our beliefs can be built upon, Descartes is only creating a false bottom to his argument. In my view, if we cannot justify that our belief is true then our idea must be false. Descartes’ quest for indisputable truths may be noble and appealing, but the idea just isn’t true in its principles.
ReplyDeleteAs Margret has stated before me, even if we manage to find ideas that fit with Descartes’ idea of foundational beliefs, we cannot prove that they are true, just that they exist in our idea of reality, which may in actuality be the Matrix. Descartes remedies the idea of the Matrix with the idea of infinitely perfect God who is incapable of deceit, but then he believes that the idea of God is foundational, which the atheists around us would disagree with. Excluding the idea of God we have no way of knowing if our perception of reality is correct. Descartes’ argument may prove the existence of God to himself, but all the Cogito argument proves is that I myself, not anyone or anything else around me, exist. All I know of my surroundings is that what I perceive is my definition of truth, although it may not be correct in essence. Therefore, I would argue that although true knowledge may be attainable, we have no means of recognizing or proving that our knowledge is true because we cannot prove that the perception of our surroundings is correct.
I believe that foundationalism is an imperfect method. Every argument must be justified or it is just a claim. There are no ideas that are inherently true. Descartes attempts to prove that the Cogito is a foundational belief, but his argument is based on circular logic. He claims that “I think, therefore I exist”. However, the premise “I think” already assumes that he exists by using the word “I” to refer to himself. Even if the Cogito is true without justification, it cannot be a foundational belief because no other arguments can be drawn from it. The Cogito only deals with his existence and what that entails, regardless if he or anything else physically exists. Therefore, it cannot be used to create new arguments about the external world. Any other belief cannot be a foundational belief because, as Margret says, even if we assume something to be true we cannot guarantee that it is.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don’t think there is any viable alternative. Though it seems difficult to reject all of our sensory data and everything we believe we have perceived for what seems like years, there is no way to prove it. It is possible that everything our senses have indicated were random electrical signals that were interpreted by our brain to form the world we perceive. Or, its even possible that what we call matter doesn’t exist at all and we’re being deceived.
Sunshine proposed that to find knowledge we must use reason, experience, and others’ input. I don’t find that a plausible idea. First, all of our reason is based on the perceptions from our external world. We believe in gravity because we see it. We believe that the shortest distance between two points is a line because we’ve seen it. Others’ input is also dependent on the external world. It’s possible that no one else exists as our only justification for this is perception. However, we could be in the matrix and all of our sense data would be false. In that scenario, none of the things he proposes would be able to give true knowledge. Yet, since I believe that knowledge can never be proven I think this is how we should live out our lives. Even if its not real, our happiness and emotions are dependent on our external world. Therefore, we should act in a manner that’s consistent with our senses in order to have the most enjoyable life.
I agree with what Robert is saying. In the philisophical world, when you have a belief, it needs to be justified and Descartes orginally tried to make these beliefs knowledge which is impossible because there was no justification behind his beliefs. If your beliefs are not justified then anything you say or do can be viewed as not true which means that you have false knowledge, or in other words no knowledge. Because descartes begins with a faulty premise to his argument, he ends up with a faulty conclusion. not to say that the conclusion is not true, it is just hard to believe because it is not justified. However I do believe that it is still possible for one to gain knowledge and for thst knowedge to be proven , and that is why i stronlgy disagree with Catherine when she says knowledge can never be proven. For example, I know that i was born September 21, 1993. I know this because i have a birth certificate that proves that i was born on that date. That same certificate is the proof of my knowledge that i was born on September 21, 1993.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, justification of all beliefs is necesary in order for an argument to be a valid one, and also knowledge is abtainable only if you have proof
While I do agree that in any argument it is important to have a firm foundation so that you can prove what you argue is knowledge, Descartes' methods of coming to this point are deeply flawed. In order for someone's point to make any sort of rational sense in an argument, it is of grave importance for that same person to be sure that what they are arguing to have a firm foundation of truth, or else the entire argument topples. Descartes' reason for his meditations is to prove that we as humans can possess knowledge, but there is so much falsehood in what we percieve and what we believe that we do not know what to believe. That is why he Descartes tries to establish a firm foundation for truth that cannot be questioned. Without this foundation we can have no knowledge. While the truthfulness of his foundations may be debated, Descartes ways of justification prove to be highly opinion based and require too much in the reader to already concur with what is said. One example of this is how Descartes tries to get himself out of the Cartesian Circle. He makes the point that if a person truly believes that their beliefs are the truth, than the same must also be true. While this argument technically does bring Descartes out of the circle, it gives up too much in what he was trying to prove to begin with. After questioning if what he thinks is true Descartes goes on to say that it must be true if he believes it is a very poor way to find the 'real' in the world. At this point, his attempts to break out of the Cartesian Circle seem to me as more sophistry for his previous arguments than as a way to further his goal of proving knowledge. For these reasons Descartes fails in his thought experiment.
ReplyDeleteIn concept, Foundationalism sounds like a good idea. By taking away everything irrelevant, and searhcing for the core ideas that are innately true and need no evidence, it should provide a solid, and irrufutable base for everything. But in reality, the foundationalist approach does not work (at least, not for Descartes). Trying to find those beliefs are near impossible, since there is so much room for interpretation. It is far easier to poke holes in an arguement than to support one. Descartes is trying to fight fire with fire(skepticism w/ skepticism), but he ends up getting burned. In trying to defend his arguments, he makes wild assumptions that eventually crumble away, thus imploding his entire argument. Which is ironic, given the fact he was trying to create a stong base. Using the Cogito, he does make a nice cement platform, but the flismy wooden beams he tries to use snap under the applied pressure of skepticism. If we declare that foundationalism fails, is there an alternative? Not that I know of. Foundationalism is hard to support (pun intended)but I do believeit is going in the right direction. Descartes just was unable to successfully prove it. Perhaps eventually someone will be able to. In the meantime, we should just put a hold on the search for 'real' knowledge. Actually, in general, knowing the foundational beliefs and what is 'real' probably won't change our world that much. Sure its nice knowing, but if we don't know anything, or our beliefs are false, there is nothing we can do about it. If we are in 'The Matrix, we probably won't be able to escape.(unless we take a pill...)
ReplyDeleteI believe that Descartes’ theory of foundational truth is one that will never be believed. In order for anyone to believe facts, there must be proof as to how those facts came to be. The same goes for Descartes. His search for knowledge and ideas that don’t need to be justified are useless attempts to gain trust and support of others. Without correct justification, nothing can be proven true. If there were no justification, I could say something like “my middle name is Greg”, and people would have no choice to believe me based on my word, regardless of the fact that it was a complete lie. His quest for this kind of knowledge is not completely misguided, but it is definitely flawed. This does not mean that knowledge is impossible or unobtainable, it simply means that no source of knowledge goes without some sort of base already in place. Everything needs to be justified in some way, which will give Descartes a better idea of how the world works. You cannot find any class of beliefs without justification, because justifying something is what truly makes them believable and real. A statement that is said “out of the blue” is not going to have the same reaction to it as a statement that was researched and justified. Without some sort of foundational proof to back it up, it is impossible to make a statement that can’t be proven false.
ReplyDelete