Is Anything Real?

Is Anything Real? 

Rene Descartes wrote the book “Discourse on the Method.” Throughout this book, Descartes gives his method on how he guides and directs reason. Although he provides us with his approach to reason or his idea of getting to the truth, he admits that it can be doubted or false. He brings to attention that knowledge as people know it can be doubted or false. Because of this, Rene Descartes created the question “can anyone know what is absolutely true?” In his book, he attempts to use his method of reason and his belief in God to develop a plausible answer.
Rene Descartes discusses truth many times in his book. He talks about how he determines what is true and what is not or if anything can actually indisputably be true. Descartes states, “I came to think that I should do the exact opposite and reject as completely false everything in which I could detect the least doubt, in order to see if anything thereafter remained in my belief that was completely indubitable.” (Pg. 28) In this quote, Descartes decides to take everything he believes to be true and question it. Then, he wants to see if anything he believed is still true to him. He goes onto say, “ I judged that I was prone to error as anyone else, and I rejected as false all the reasoning I had hitherto accepted as valid proof.” (Pg. 28) Here, Descartes has come to the conclusion that he could be just as wrong as everyone else. Resulting in disbelief in his reasoning for determining what is true. The next step for Descartes is to say, “ I resolved to pretend that everything that had ever entered my head was no more true than the illusions of my dreams.” (Pg. 28) Now, he does not think anything he knows is true. Everything can be disputed. Throughout all of these quotes, one can see that Descartes is progressing through his view of truth. First, he begins questioning what he thinks to be true. Second, he withdraws his stability of reasoning towards truth. Lastly, he decides that he can not prove anything he perceives as knowledge. This process is what makes the question “can anyone know what is actually true?”
After writing all of this, Rene Descartes does not leave us with this lingering question. He uses his reason to give an answer. Descarte comes to a realization and says, “ ...while I was trying to think of all things being false in this way, it was necessarily the case that I, who was thinking them, had to be something; and observing this truth: I am thinking therefore I exist…” (Pg. 28) This statement is still extremely well-known today; I think therefore I am. As he was thinking everything he had known to be false, he realized that that was not the case. The fact that he was thinking means that he himself had to exist. If there is nothing, you cannot think. This gave him the proof that one thing was true, himself. This is one incontrovertible truth. This truth cannot be changed by skepticism or uncertainty.  Descarte says, “... I could pretend that I had no body and that there was no world or place for me to be in, but I could not for all that pretend that I did not exist…” (Pg. 29) He still could not prove anything else, but he could prove the existence of himself through the act of him thinking. The discovery of this truth leads to the larger certainty of other things we reason to be true. If one can think, a higher probability of what people believe to be knowledge is true. If one can think, truth has a higher percentage to be accurate by reason. 
Rene Descartes did not also want to leave his readers with the doubt of everything except themselves. Because of this, Descartes states, “So that there remained only the possibility that it had been put into me by nature which was truly more perfect than mine, and one which even had in itself all the perfections of which I could have any idea, that is to say, in a word, which was God.” (Pg. 30) He knows he can never find out what is true on his own because he is not perfect. Therefore, he goes to the one who is perfect, God. God knows all things because He created all things. Descartes “...could see that doubt, inconsistency, sadness, and such things could not be in Him…”(Pg. 30) None of these attributes could be used to explain God. God is the only explanation for everything humans can not possibly know to be true. 

When Rene Descartes wrote the book “A Discourse on the Method” he conceived an intimidating questioned that asked if anyone can know what is absolutely true. Descartes used his reasoning and his belief in God to answer this question. The first conclusion was that no one can know for absolute certainty that anything was true. He then realized that he was thinking, therefore, through reason, he had to exist and be true. However, he could not know anything else undoubtedly. Because of this, he had to rely on perfection. God is the only one who lives up to this standard. God knows all things. God created all things. In conclusion, we can not know what is absolutely true on our own except that we are. Everything else in the universe is a mystery so we must have faith in God. God is what answers the question. 

Comments

  1. Natalie provided a lovely analysis on what Descartes was telling his audience in "A Discourse on the Method" which is what kept this an intriguing read for me, personally. Her question of "can anyone know what is actually true?" accompanies the question by Alison Culpepper of "can we distinguish between our dreams and reality?"https://khaleesi-of-words.blogspot.com/
    Natalie and Alison both mention in their essays about Descartes’ popular idea of “I am thinking, therefore I exist.” Both of them mention the part of the text where Descartes claims that God must exist because there has to be a higher power that allows humans to reason and think. Natalie uses his claim in support of her notion that we can only know the absolute truth of our existence through God, while Allison uses Descartes’ claim in support of her conclusion that the senses have no falsifiability since they come from a Being who is more perfect than us. So, with this in mind, both arguments prove their significance through their clear explanations of Descartes’ method. Ultimately, though both essays are very good and very comparable, I have to endorse Allison’s essay more than Natalie’s essay. I say this because she included a wider range of extensive details in her argument that allowed me to be more invested and affected.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gender Roles in Bacchae by Euripides

Kids at Heart