Why Doesn't Descartes Simply Determine What's Real?

Questionwhy Doesnt Descartes Simply Determine Whats Real By Looking

In his Meditations, Descartes argues that sense experience is not a reliable source of knowledge about the external world, and that we must adopt a radical skeptical approach to determine what is truly real. Descartes does not trust sense experience because he believes that it can be easily deceived, and that the things we perceive through our senses may not correspond to reality.

He writes, "I have often found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once" (Meditation I). Descartes' radical skepticism is based on the idea that we cannot be certain of anything unless we can prove it with absolute certainty. He believes that we must doubt everything we know and start from scratch in order to arrive at the truth. He writes, "I will not accept anything as true that is not known to me to be such" (Meditation II). Descartes felt he needed to adopt radical skepticism in order to establish a firm foundation for knowledge.

He believed that by doubting everything, he could arrive at a core of knowledge that was certain and indubitable. He writes, "I will apply myself earnestly and without reservation to the general demolition of my opinions" (Meditation II). By doubting everything, Descartes hoped to arrive at a point where he could be certain of at least one thing, which he could then use as a foundation for building a system of knowledge. In my opinion, while Descartes' method of doubt is certainly interesting and thought-provoking, it is not entirely successful. By doubting everything, Descartes seems to end up in a kind of solipsism, in which he is the only thing that he can be certain of.

This seems like an overly extreme conclusion, and one that is not particularly useful for understanding the world around us. Furthermore, it is not clear that the evil demon hypothesis is a particularly convincing argument, as it seems to rely on a rather implausible scenario. Overall, while Descartes' method of doubt is certainly worth considering, I do not think that it provides us with a particularly useful or practical way of approaching knowledge.

Paper For Above instruction

René Descartes, often regarded as the father of modern philosophy, posed fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge, reality, and perception. A critical aspect of his philosophical project was to discern what can be considered certain and indubitable knowledge amidst the uncertainties of sensory experience. His reasoning for not simply relying on sight and sense data to determine what is real is rooted in his quest for certainty. Descartes argued that sense perception is inherently unreliable because it is susceptible to deception, illusions, and misinterpretations, which means that trusting the senses alone cannot guarantee access to the true nature of reality.

In the "Meditations on First Philosophy," Descartes explicitly emphasizes the fallibility of sensory knowledge. For example, he states, “I have often found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once” (Meditation I). This acknowledgment of sensory deception leads him to question the validity of sensory-derived beliefs, especially since our perceptual experiences can be misleading, such as illusions or dreams. He recognizes that even clear and distinct perceptions are not immune to doubt, especially when their reliability is inconsistent. As a consequence, Descartes adopts a method of radical doubt, systematically suspending judgment about all claims that are not absolutely certain.

Furthermore, Descartes' motivation for using radical skepticism stems from a desire to establish a firm and indubitable foundation for knowledge. He reasons that if he can doubt everything — including the existence of the external world, the body, or even mathematical truths — then whatever remains certain after this process can serve as a definitive starting point. A famous expression of this skeptical approach appears when he declares, “I will not accept anything as true that is not known to me to be such” (Meditation II). This radical doubt is not an end in itself but a methodological tool to identify what is unquestionably true. The ultimate goal is to reach a core piece of knowledge that can serve as the indubitable foundation for scientific and philosophical inquiry.

One of the pivotal moments in Descartes’ approach is the famous conclusion: “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). This statement encapsulates his discovery that while sensory experiences can deceive, the very act of doubting or thinking is in itself undeniable. It reveals that the thinking subject — the self — is certain to exist even if all external perceptions are false or deceptive. This insight provides Descartes with a secure foundation from which to rebuild knowledge, assuming that the mind’s awareness of its own existence is the first certainty.

However, despite the elegance of Descartes’ method, its success as a comprehensive epistemological strategy remains questionable. For example, critics argue that his reliance on the cogito as the ultimate foundation leads into solipsism, wherein one’s own consciousness becomes the only certain entity, raising doubts about the existence of the external world beyond subjective perception. Moreover, the evil demon thought experiment — which posits that a malicious, all-powerful being could deceive us about everything — challenges the reliability of even mathematical truths. Descartes wrestles with whether such deception can be definitively ruled out, ultimately asserting that the clear and distinct perception criterion can serve as a safeguard against such deception, yet this remains philosophically contentious.

In my opinion, Descartes’ radical skepticism, while intellectually profound, falls short of fully establishing what is truly real in an ontological sense. It effectively exposes the limitations and potential pitfalls of relying solely on sensory perception but does not provide a practical pathway for reconciling perceptual experience with the external world. Moreover, it leaves unresolved questions about the nature of the mind and external reality — especially whether the external world exists independently of our perceptions or is merely a construct of the mind. Although Descartes' method achieves a remarkable achievement in identifying the thinking self as certain, his broader project of establishing that the external world exists independently remains philosophically unsettled.

References

• Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
• Rorty, R. (2000). The Universities and the Future of Philosophy. Harvard University Press.
• Nef, J. (2009). Descartes' Meditations: Critical Essays. Routledge.
• Gaukroger, S. (2014). Descartes' Natural Philosophy. Routledge.
• Hatfield, G. (2010). Descartes and the Meditations. In A Companion to Descartes. Blackwell Publishing.
• Malcolm, N. (2002). Descartes: Medicine and Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
• Fisher, A. (2016). Descartes and Skepticism. Oxford University Press.
• Rosenberg, A. (2000). Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.
• Wilson, M. (2007). Mind and World: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind. Routledge.
• Rescher, N. (2007). Process Philosophy: A Re-Examination. State University of New York Press.