Descartes Evil Demon

In Descartes, What Can Be Called to Doubt, he discusses whether or not everything around us is real, or fake. He believes that there are opinions we form that are false, but we fail to realize it. So, by questioning each belief, one could then find the truth in what we believe. He also states that most of our beliefs we get from using our senses. Then he questions our senses in the context of dreaming. When dreaming you cant tell if you are awake or not. At this moment you could be dreaming and there would be no way to prove or disprove that. Descartes then brings God into the picture saying, "How do I know that he hasn’t brought it about that there is no earth, no sky, nothing that takes up space, no shape, no size, no place, while making

This essay will critically discuss both of Descartes arguments – The Dreaming argument and The Evil Demon argument. It is clear to say that both of Descartes arguments casts doubt and this is made clear through the first meditation. Throughout this essay I will evaluate both arguments and critically evaluate the Evil Demon argument.

This essay will attempt to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Descartes’ dreaming argument and evil demon argument. Through discussion, I will show why the evil demon argument is more plausible than the dreaming argument. The essay will give a brief definition of the two arguments and explain why these arguments are important. Then I will discuss the two arguments, considering both sides and referencing previous work by other philosophers. I will conclude with a short summary of the topics covered.

The Evil Demon Hypothesis is an important component of the Method of Doubt. Descartes used the Method of Doubt to find what is true by withholding assent from all beliefs that are dubitable. However, if Descartes was to scrutinise everything he believed, he would be left with an

Thomas Hobbes solution on the mind-body problem is one of a combination. Hobbes posits that rather than mind and body being two separate things they actually are both the same thing, matter. He confronts Descartes by saying that the thing that is thinking and the action of thinking are not the same things. If this is true then according to his logic we must conclude that "a thinking thing is something corporeal. This is because it seems that the subjects of all actions are comprehensible only if they are conceived as corporeal or material." Essentially stating that the material body is the only substance there is. To boot thoughts are

However, the Meditator realizes that he is often convinced when he is dreaming that he is sensing real objects. He feels certain that he is awake and sitting by the fire, but reflects that often he has dreamed this very sort of thing and been thoroughly convinced by it. On further reflection, he realizes that even simple things can be doubted. Omnipotent God could make even our conception of mathematics false. One might argue that God is supremely good and would not lead Descartes to believe falsely all these things. He supposes that not God, but some "evil demon" has committed itself to deceiving him so that everything he thinks he knows is false. By doubting everything, he can at least be sure not to be misled into falsehood by this demon.

At the beginning of Meditation three, Descartes has made substantial progress towards defeating skepticism. Using his methods of Doubt and Analysis he has systematically examined all his beliefs and set aside those which he could call into doubt until he reached three beliefs which he could not possibly doubt. First, that the evil genius seeking to deceive him could not deceive him into thinking that he did not exist when in fact he did exist. Second, that his essence is to be a thinking thing. Third, the essence of matter is to be flexible, changeable and extended.

René Descartes was a skeptic, and thus he believed that in order for something to be considered a true piece of knowledge, that “knowledge must have a certain stability,” (Cottingham 21). In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes concludes that in order to achieve this stability, he must start at the foundations for all of his opinions and find the basis of doubt in each of them. David Hume, however, holds a different position on skepticism in his work An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, for he criticizes Descartes’ claim because “‘it is impossible,’” (qtd. in Cottingham 35). Both philosophers show distinct reasoning in what skepticism is and how it is useful in finding stability.

René Descartes was an extremely influential 17th-century philosopher and came up with many ideas that still persist to this day. One of those ideas was Cartesian skepticism, which states that “the view that we do not or cannot have knowledge in regard to a particular domain,” knowledge, in this case, is justified, true, beliefs. He first comes up with his idea of skepticism in the first part of his work “Meditations On First Philosophy,” aptly named “Of the things which may be brought within the sphere of the doubtful.” In his first meditation, he discusses his doubts with sensory illusion/error, possible dream states, and regarding deception by an evil demon. However, after dissolving his first two doubts, he gets stuck on the third and

Descartes introduced the idea of universal doubt to philosophy. If there is even a slight case for doubting something, then it should be doubted. His skepticism was used to find a basis for knowledge and his aim was to establish truths. He relayed this universal doubt to all human understanding. Not only does it

He would continue and urge us not to trust what we see because there is no way of being certain about anything. Methodological doubt was his basis on life claiming that everything is to be doubted. Rene Descartes first begins to come to some kind of belief by the Third Meditation. Rene states . . . "I am certain that I am a thinking being; but do I not therefore likewise know what is required to make me certain of something?" (p113 Methods & Meditations). He goes on to say that God could not possibly be deceitful, it would not be his divine nature. This is when things start to come together for Rene. After acknowledging that a divine God could not possibly be evil Rene goes even further to say that he (God) must exist. This equation sounds strange but to this point Rene never really considered if God even existed or if he was simply a part of his imagination.

Descartes’s theory of knowledge is essentially based in skepticism. He argued that in order to understand the world, first a person has to completely suspend their judgements of the world around them. This is the impression that the world makes on their mind. In this way, the physical world is not what leads to knowledge. Instead, the mind finds rationally seeks knowledge. The question is, essentially, “should we believe beyond the evidence?” (Kessler, 2013, p. 332). In this way, the ideas are rooted in the nature of doubt. This is an inherent nature of the mind, which is the result of the nature of man as made by God. In this way, the mind is guided by god towards knowledge in its infallible ability to reason about reality. In this way, the mind’s reasoning ability, even in the absence of physical reality, can ultimately lead to knowledge. I don’t fully agree with Descartes’ proposition that only the mind can produce certain knowledge and that our senses are constantly under the attack and being deceive by some evil deceiver. In order to go against Descartes propositions concerning about doubt I will use Locke to oppose it.

Descartes’ first meditation, his main objective is to present three skeptical arguments to bring doubt upon what he considers his basic beliefs. Descartes believes this to be an intricate part of his complete epistemological argument. Descartes skeptical arguments are not intended to be a denial of his basic beliefs. On the contrary, he uses these arguments to help prove one of his main theses, which is the existence of God. One of the main premises that Descartes uses in his proof for the existence of God comes from the evil demon argument, which he proposed, in the first meditation. It is this evil demon argument, which will be the topic of the following discussion.

Descartes’ method of radical doubt focuses upon finding the truth about certain things from a philosophical perspective in order to truly lay down a foundation for ideas that have the slightest notion of doubt attached to them. He believed that there was “no greater task to perform in philosophy, than assiduously to seek out, once and for all, the best of all these arguments and to lay them out so precisely and plainly that henceforth all will take them to be true demonstrations” (Meditations, 36). The two key concepts that Descartes proves using the method of doubt are that the “human soul does not die with the body, and that God exists” as mentioned in his Letter of Dedication, since there are many that don’t believe the mentioned concepts because of the fact that they have not been proven or demonstrated. (Meditations, 35). In order to prove the above, he lays out six Meditations, each focusing on a different theme that leads us “to the knowledge of our mind and of God, so that of all things that can be known by the human mind, these latter are the most certain and the most evident” (Meditations, 40).

The existence of God has been a question since the idea of God was conceived. Descartes tries to prove Gods existence, to disprove his Evil demon theory, and to show that there is without a doubt something external to ones own existence. He is looking for a definite certainty, a foundation for which he can base all of his beliefs and know for a fact that they are true.