Descartes' Epistemological Worries

Descartes’
Epistemological Worries
Descartes’
How are these (see below) connected?
•Global/Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Why would Descartes begin to

question the possibility of knowledge?
What is his definition or criterion of

knowledge?
Just when can you count a belief you

hold as also being a piece of
knowledge, and not simply an opinion
that just happens to be true?
Descartes’
•Rationalism
Why would Descartes begin to question the

possibility of knowledge?

knowledge?
Just when can you count a belief you hold as

also being a piece of knowledge, and not
simply an opinion that just happens to be
true?
Descartes lived in a time when what

looked to be unassailable beliefs were
shown to be false.
Descartes’
•Rationalism One example: Earth’s (and our)
place within the universe.
knowledge?
For centuries the prevailing theory was the view that
simply an opinion that just happens to be
seemed to accord with a vast majority of the
true?
available evidence.
Earth is the center of the universe.
What is (was) that prevailing evidence?
Let’s attempt to generate an exhaustive list.
Descartes Epistemological
Worries
How are these three (see below) connected?
•Global Skepticism
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism


knowledge?

simply an opinion you hold?
While there always was a strong preponderance of

evidence in favor of the geocentric view,
knowledgeable people were aware of certain
troubles for the view.
Especially those who paid careful attention to the
movements of planets.
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism ΠΛΑΝΗΤΕΣ

knowledge?

Unlike the “fixed” stars,

the planets move. They
also seem to backtrack.
What is the explanation,
especially given the
assumption that the orbits
should be perfect circles,
due to nature being an
expression of divine
perfection?
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Why would Descartes begin to question the ΠΛΑΝΗΤΕΣ


knowledge?

Unlike the “fixed” stars,

the planets move. They
also seem to backtrack.
What is the explanation,
especially given the
assumption that the orbits
perfection?
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism


knowledge?

also being a piece of knowledge, and not Circles moving
on circles.
{The larger
called the
What is the explanation, “deferent,” the
especially given the smaller the
assumption that the orbits “epicycle”}
perfection?
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism


knowledge?

This problem was always lurking to cause trouble.

But with advent of careful observation and better
instruments, the Ptolemaic view began to be more
questionable. To match the observed positions of
planets, people who tested the model had to add
epicyles..(circular motion added on to circular
motion.) They had to add and add, and add..
But the predictions never quite matched the

observed positions. Why?
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism Eventually, the clumsiness and inelegance of
the geocentric theory forced Copernicus to
consider the heliocentric alternative.
knowledge?

Much more elegant, and simple

mathematically. Try to describe this
using some trig:
And then this:

Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism

possibility of knowledge? This seemed to preserve simplicity, and circular
knowledge?
motion. However, Johannes Kepler, using careful
observations made not only by himself, but by
simply an opinion you hold? Tycho Brahe, was able to show that even the
heliocentric system was not perfectly able to
predict observations. It too seemed to require
epicycles, even if fewer in number, and simpler in
calculation.
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Why would Descartes begin to question the So, Descartes

had damn good
knowledge? reason to be
worried!
All of this was swirling around Descartes. He was

the contemporary of these men. In his lifetime he
had seen one of the centuries-old cornerstones of
science, the geocentric view, and more broadly,
Aristotelian physics, overthrown; shown to be
false, when to all appearances, it was as near a
certainty as you could find.
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism


knowledge?
So, he asks himself:
simply an opinion you hold? What really constitutes knowledge?
What can I really know?
How can we avoid being fooled again?
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
So, he asks himself:
Why would Descartes begin to question the What really constitutes knowledge?
What can I really know?
knowledge? How can we avoid being fooled
again?
In answering one question, (what is the true

definition or criterion of knowledge) he in
effect answers the Who’s question. By his
criterion of knowledge it won’t be possible to
be fooled again.
A belief is a genuine piece of knowledge if AND ONLY IF

it is a belief that is incapable of being doubted. It must
be IMMUNE from doubt. There is NO WAY the belief
could turn out to be incorrect.
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism

A belief is a genuine piece of knowledge if AND ONLY IF it is a belief that
What is his definition or criterion of is incapable of being doubted. It must be IMMUNE from doubt. There is
knowledge? NO WAY the belief could turn out to be incorrect.

Given this criterion, he can now ask himself just how much he truly knows.
To begin to answer, he asks what his sources of beliefs are. They can be
categorized into some broad categories:
Sense Reason and

Experience Logic Authority
Taking each in turn, let’s see if we can find any pieces of genuine bona fide
knowledge being delivered from their precincts!
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism

A belief is a genuine piece of knowledge if AND ONLY IF it is a belief that
What is his definition or criterion of is incapable of being doubted. It must be IMMUNE from doubt. There is
knowledge? NO WAY the belief could turn out to be incorrect.

While doing so, make sure to use the two all-purpose hypotheses of “hyperbolic
doubt”!
The evil demon hypothesis
(Or God’s evil twin brother)
Sense Reason and Authority

Experience Logic
The dream hypothesis
Taking each in turn, let’s see if we can find any pieces of genuine bona fide
knowledge being delivered from their precincts!
Sense Experience?
Descartes Epistemological Worries

•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism


knowledge?
Just when can you count a belief you hold

as also being a piece of knowledge, and not
A belief is a genuine piece of knowledge if AND ONLY IF it is a

belief that is incapable of being doubted. It must be IMMUNE
from doubt. There is NO WAY the belief could turn out to be
incorrect.
Sense
Experience
The evil demon and dream hypotheses make short order of this
source of our beliefs. For all we know, we could be dreaming our
everyday life. For all we know, we could be disembodied minds
being fooled into thinking we live in a universe full of matter,
including our home: planet Earth.
Do you really know..
How old you are?
That you are human?
That you have parents?
That the Earth is 3.5
billion years old
That the universe is 13
billion years old?
That you are in
Annapolis?
That you have a physical
body?
That space and time
exist?
Authority?

•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism


knowledge?


belief that is incapable of being doubted. It must be IMMUNE What? The history of cosmology wasn’t
incorrect. enough to show you authorities can be
wrong?
The evil demon and dream hypotheses make short order of this
Logic and Math?

•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Why would Descartes begin to question the If P is true, then

Q is true.
knowledge? If P is true, then
P is true.
P is true
Therefore Q is
true
incorrect.
2+3=5
1=1
Surely, I can be confident that

these are beyond doubt. There is
no way I can be wrong about these
The evil demon and dreamtruths.
hypotheses make short order of this
Logic and Math?
How are these three (see below) connected? If P is true, then

•Global Skepticism If P is true, then
•Local Skepticism Q is true. 2+3=5
•Rationalism P is true
P is true.
possibility of knowledge? 1=1
knowledge?
Therefore Q is
true

incorrect.
Yeah, but..for
all I know the
Evil Demon
could be
imposing on me
even in these
seemingly
simple truths
And, don’t call me

Shirley
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism


knowledge?
Just when can you count a belief you hold as A belief is a genuine piece of knowledge if AND ONLY IF it
simply an opinion you hold? is a belief that is incapable of being doubted. It must be
IMMUNE from doubt. There is NO WAY the belief could turn
out to be incorrect.
Given this criterion, it looks as if there is no belief of Descartes’ (or ours) that
will pass the test:
Sense Reason and
Experience Logic Authority
The evil demon is seemingly boundless in his ability to fool us. We can never be
certain that we are not in a position like those of our ancestors who were utterly
convinced of the geocentric view. We too, may be radically mistaken in the most
basic assumptions we carry around day-to-day, or use in science.
How old you are?
That you are human?
billion years old
billion years old?
That you are in
Annapolis?
body?
That space and time
exist?
That matter exists?
That logic and math yield
truths?
How old you are?
That you are human?
billion years old
billion years old?
That you are in
Annapolis?
body?
That space and time
exist?
That matter exists
That logic and math yield
truths
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

But, Descartes asks himself if the demon truly is boundless in what he can pull
off, can he deceive us about absolutely anything?
No. Try as he He produces a nifty argument

may, he cannot (called a “reductio” argument) to
convince me that I prove this..
don’t exist!
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

1. Assume that the demon can deceive me into thinking that I don’t exist.
2. If the demon can so deceive me, then I must be cognizant of the materials
that he provides in order to fool me.
3. But, if I am cognizant of those materials, I must, in fact exist ( I must be
hanging around for goodness sakes).
So, granting assumption (1), I must, in fact exist.
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

So, having started out with countless beliefs that he either consciously or
implicitly held, Descartes has been left with exactly one that he can say, without
a doubt, is a piece of knowledge.
“I am, I exist: this is certain; but for how long? For as long
as I think..”
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

Now, he does also say: “ I am therefore, precisely speaking, only a thing

which thinks, that is to say, a mind, understanding, or reason..”
What do you suppose he

means here by using the
phrase “precisely
speaking?”
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

The argument, so far only allows him to claim, as indubitable, statements

having to do with:
1. Mental facts about his present state (I am thinking, or having sense
experiences or sense data of various types which I take to be caused by the
room, the fire, the wax lump, the furniture etc..”
2. The fact that he (as an experiencing or thinking thing) must also exist as a
sort of ‘substance’ that “has” these various mental properties.
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

The argument, so far only allows him to claim,

as indubitable, statements having to
do with:
1. Mental facts about his present state (I
am thinking, or having sense
experiences or sense data of various
types which I take to be caused by the
room, its furniture etc..”
2. The fact that he (as an experiencing or
thinking thing) must also exist as a
sort of substance that “has” these
various mental properties.
But, the argument, so far, does not allow him to claim as indubitable,
statements that go beyond these two points. In particular:
1. Statements that make definite claims about his “also” being a human body..
2. That inhabits a physical world, brought about by a divine creator.
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

The argument, so far only allows him to claim, as •So, Why isn’t Descartes just a skeptic?
indubitable, statements having to do with:
1. Mental facts about his present state (I am
thinking, or having sense experiences or •Why isn’t he just a solipsist?
sense data of various types which I take
to be caused by the room, its furniture
etc..”
thinking thing) must also exist as a sort of
Because he believes he can demonstrate that our
substance that “has” these various mental
properties. ‘big picture’ of the world and its furniture is
But, the argument, so far, does not allow
basically correct, even if we sometimes get the
him to claim as indubitable,
statements that go beyond these
details wrong. He believes (contrary to
1.
two points. In particular:
Statements that make definite
appearances in the first two Meditations), that we
claims about his “also” being a
human body..
can KNOW that we have a body, that the material
2. That inhabits a physical world,
brought about by a divine creator.
world exists, and that God exists.
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

The argument, so far only allows him to claim, as

•His proof must start from his one bedrock piece of
knowledge: “I think”. And proceed by obvious “clear
thinking, or having sense experiences or and distinct steps” (see below)
sense data of various types which I take
etc..” •It will examine the contents of his mental life
•It will look for the earmarks of knowledge
properties.
•“Clear and Distinct” ideas will be counted as
him to claim as indubitable, indubitable. These are SO self evident as to be
two points. In particular: obvious upon even cursory inspection.
1. Statements that make definite
human body..
•We have one example of such an idea “I Think,
2. That inhabits a physical world, therefore I am.” Only similarly clear and distinct
brought about by a divine creator.
beliefs will be counted as knowledge.
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

The argument, so far only allows him to claim, as •He runs through the categories of mental
states, (concepts and thoughts we use)
thinking, or having sense experiences or
sense data of various types which I take and asks about each:
etc..”
•‘Is there anything about mental states in
this category that requires for their
properties.
existence that they be caused by
him to claim as indubitable, something other than myself?’
two points. In particular:
1. Statements that make definite
Well, what are these categories? To find out, he wants us
human body..
to use everyday experience, (as he did with the wax.) What
2. That inhabits a physical world,
brought about by a divine creator. constitutes an everyday experience such as experiencing a
ball of wax, or a table?
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

simply an opinion you hold? A ball of wax is experienced because we:
A. Have various sensory experiences which are..
B. Tied together by the concept of a substance, that is:
C. A something that HAS various properties, those
properties cause those sensory states within us;
furthermore, the substance can..
D. Survive changes (lose and gain properties while still
remaining the same bit of substance)
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

simply an opinion you hold? Such substances:
Have more “independence” than the properties they have.
• (For example; redness cannot exist unless it is ‘had’ by a
substance, yet the substance can exist without the
redness)
Yet, do depend on the actions of other substances for their
existence
• Wax depends on bees
• Tables on trees and humans
• Humans and other animals on parents
In fact, as a very broad category, “substance” can be divided into two sorts, both of
which we humans do have concepts, as history has shown.
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

INFINITE SUBSTANCE
Level of
Finite substance Perfection
Properties or “modes”
Which can then be placed, along with the general concept of properties, in a hierarchy
of relative perfection, (or at the very least, relative independence).
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

INFINITE SUBSTANCE
Finite substance Level of
Perfection
Properties or “modes”
Now, return to Descartes’ question: Is there anything about any one of these broad
conceptual categories we use in interpreting our world, that requires, as an
explanation of that conceptual category’s very existence, that something other than
myself caused that conception?
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?

Now, return to Descartes’ question: Is there

INFINITE SUBSTANCE anything about any one of these broad
conceptual categories we use in interpreting our
world, that requires, as an explanation of that
Perfection conceptual category’s very existence, that
something other than myself caused that
Properties or “modes” conception?
Keeping in mind this principle (which Descartes claims is as clear and distinct as the
“cogito”):
P 1. Any experience or “idea” I have that “reports” to me the existence of something
at one of the three levels of reality MUST HAVE BEEN caused by something that
REALLY has at least as much reality as that experience or “idea” reports.
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?


Well, how Keeping in mind this principle (which Descartes

about it folks? claims is as clear and distinct as the “cogito”):
Could I have P 1. Any experience or “idea” I have that
“reports” to me the existence of something at
been the one of the three levels of reality MUST HAVE
cause of that BEEN caused by something that REALLY has
at least as much reality as that experience or
idea of a cold “idea” reports.
lump of wax?
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?



lump of wax?
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic

knowledge?



lump of wax?
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism
Experience Logic
But, wait a minute! We’ve only
knowledge?
examined the ideas from two
levels in the hierarchy of being.
also being a piece of knowledge, and not What about the idea of infinite
substance?
Level of world, that requires, as an explanation of that
Finite substance Perfection conceptual category’s very existence, that

lump of wax?
Worries
•Local Skepticism
•Rationalism

possibility of knowledge? But, wait a minute! We’ve only
What is his definition or criterion of examined the ideas from two
knowledge?
levels in the hierarchy of being.
Just when can you count a belief you hold as What about the idea of infinite
simply an opinion you hold? substance?
conceptual categories we use in interpreting
Level of our world, that requires, as an explanation of
Finite substance Perfection that conceptual category’s very existence,
that something other than myself caused that

about it claims is as clear and distinct as the “cogito”):
folks? Could P 1. Any experience or “idea” I have that
I have been one of the three levels of reality MUST HAVE
the cause of BEEN caused by something that REALLY has
that idea of “idea” reports.
infinite
substance?
According to P1 there is
no way I could have been
the cause of this concept.
Why?
Because I am a finite
substance, NOT an..
INFINITE SUBSTANCE
INFINITE SUBSTANCE The idea of an infinite substance is the
idea of a a substance that has no
If God exists, then he is dependency on any other thing, is
perfect, not only in some
complete within itself, and neither fails
ways, but in every way,
including in his goodness, to exist, nor comes into being nor
and his power. passes away.
So, it follows that he would not

deceive us, especially
concerning the true nature of But this is what we normally conceive
the world, and our place in it.
God to be.
So, we can rest assured that our
“big picture” of the world is
true. We do live on Earth, are
human, and can trust that
science math and logic are
bodies of truth. As well, we can
So Descartes has shown through this
rest assured that we will survive “causal” argument, that God exists.
death as souls (more on that
later!)

Descartes' Epistemological Worries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Descartes' Epistemological Worries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Descartes’

Why would Descartes begin to

What is his definition or criterion of

Just when can you count a belief you

Why would Descartes begin to question the

What is his definition or criterion of

Just when can you count a belief you hold as

Descartes lived in a time when what

Why would Descartes begin to question the

What is his definition or criterion of

Just when can you count a belief you hold as

While there always was a strong preponderance of

What is his definition or criterion of

Just when can you count a belief you hold as

Unlike the “fixed” stars,

Why would Descartes begin to question the ΠΛΑΝΗΤΕΣ

What is his definition or criterion of

Just when can you count a belief you hold as

Unlike the “fixed” stars,

Why would Descartes begin to question the ΠΛΑΝΗΤΕΣ

What is his definition or criterion of

Just when can you count a belief you hold as

Why would Descartes begin to question the ΠΛΑΝΗΤΕΣ

What is his definition or criterion of

Just when can you count a belief you hold as

This problem was always lurking to cause trouble.

But the predictions never quite matched the

Just when can you count a belief you hold as

Much more elegant, and simple

And then this:

Why would Descartes begin to question the

Why would Descartes begin to question the So, Descartes

All of this was swirling around Descartes. He was

Why would Descartes begin to question the

What is his definition or criterion of

In answering one question, (what is the true

A belief is a genuine piece of knowledge if AND ONLY IF

Why would Descartes begin to question the

Just when can you count a belief you hold as

Sense Reason and

Why would Descartes begin to question the

Just when can you count a belief you hold as

Sense Reason and Authority

How are these three (see below) connected?

Why would Descartes begin to question the

What is his definition or criterion of

Just when can you count a belief you hold

A belief is a genuine piece of knowledge if AND ONLY IF it is a

How are these three (see below) connected?

Why would Descartes begin to question the

What is his definition or criterion of

Just when can you count a belief you hold

A belief is a genuine piece of knowledge if AND ONLY IF it is a

How are these three (see below) connected?

Why would Descartes begin to question the If P is true, then

Surely, I can be confident that

How are these three (see below) connected? If P is true, then

A belief is a genuine piece of knowledge if AND ONLY IF it is a

And, don’t call me

Why would Descartes begin to question the

What is his definition or criterion of

What is his definition or criterion of

Just when can you count a belief you hold as