As far as I can see, Descartes is struggling with the same concept we all struggle with: what is all of this? The difference between Descartes and many of us is that he did not question what it was but what could be "real." I think Descartes was doing this because of his scientific mind, thinking of the world as purely logical, meaning that any question he had could be solved through near mathematical equivalence statements. I find his questions and ideas extremely intriguing. The questioning of existence, of what it could possibly be, note that he does not speak of what it means, is something that I have thought very little of. The method by which Descartes forms his arguments, that if everything is taken as false until a truth reveals itself seems, to me, to be the most efficient method of reaching a basic understanding. This method of arguing by contradiction, assuming until a contradiction of a known truth is found, reveals to Descartes that while senses may be misleading, as their irrationality lends them to be, thought, in its essence, is the only reality man can every truly know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hate it when I fall out of being! :)
ReplyDeleteSo, Ethan, do you really find 'everything is taken as false until a truth reveals itself' to be 'the most efficient method of reaching a basic understanding'? Seems rather laborious to me! I suppose it depends on one's purposes.
I agree with you about the way in Descartes establishes his argument. By denying the existence of waking life, he seems to single out thinking, our one true reality. This helps to demonstrate how we can conceive of a way to deny everything around us, but cannot possibly conceive of a way to deny the act of conceiving.
ReplyDelete