According to Descartes we are more certain of our thoughts, the content of our minds, than we are of the world around us, and even of mathematical or logical truths. He uses methodological skepticism to reach this conclusion. What do you think of methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives? Or do we do the opposite? - do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methodological skepticism is not a good strategy?
I think he's right - we are more certain about what's in our own minds than we are of the world around us. I admire Descartes' dedication to his search for truth...but wow - when I started to read his writings on the whole thing, I don't know. I just started to think "what's the point???" His description of tumbling into an abyss of doubt, finding reasons to suspect that absolutely everything could just be an illusion or a deception - it was like being inside the mind of someone who is going mad. If, after all his agonizing, the only sure thing he could come up with was that he existed - and then the dubious second part - that God exists too (which I think he came up with under a bit of an iffy presumption) - then I think he tortured himself for a very meagre result.
For use in daily life, the process of methodological skepticism is just too much. Was Descartes able to prove anything else at all, by using this process? From what I read in the book so far, it looks like he couldn't. So if we can't prove anything by it, and all it does is cast doubt on the things we think we know, why employ this method at all?
Of course we do need to have some skepticism in life. We can't just blindly accept everything other people tell us - politicians will try to ruin their opponent's reputations, advertisers will tell you their product will make you thinner, richer, happier etc., and we know better than to just take their word for it. But we don't normally bother to totally scrutinize the claims, either. Taking them apart piece by piece just seems like far too much hard work, when we can usually use our experience and our reason to figure these things out without so much effort.
However - if someone was to tell you something bad about your best friend, you'd probably apply a bit of methodological skepticism there. You might ask questions like how do they know this thing happened? could they be mistaken? and what do they gain by telling you this? I am much more likely to put things I don't want to believe through more of a methodological skepticism process than I do other things. That's probably not a good strategy in life, actually!
3 comments:
Myself,
I really enjoyed reading your blog post. You opened my eyes to how this quest for truth can be agitating and tiresome. I agree with you that it is too much for everyday life to doubt the reasons of why you perceive something to be true. Yet, at the same time I believe it is important to practice deducting knowledge down into is most fundamental parts. I think that Descartes approach, although maddening, is crucially important in the quest for awareness. With the applied effort of methodological skepticism one can be sure that at least he is exercising all of his power to obtain awareness. What are your thoughts? Is just pure 'skepticism' the middle ground?
It sounds like you want to go for a middle ground here, which sounds like a good idea!
Dear Seahorse Streaming ( what a lovely name choice, by the way) - It is true, as you say, that we can at least be sure of Descartes dedication to finding out the truth! Nobody could say he wasn't using all of his intellectual power to achieve this, I think. I do admire him for taking an idea that others might surely have given up on, and really taking it to its limits - all in the quest for knowledge. I think it reveals a very intense and focused character, not maybe someone whose company would be all that enjoyable, but definitely someone to be admired for his strength of purpose.
Post a Comment