Can there be anything beyond doubt?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
In his book Meditations on First Philosophy, the French philosopher René Descartes set forth the arguments for universal doubt. His goal was not actually to prove that nothing exists or that it is impossible for us to know if anything exists, but to show that all our knowledge of these things through the senses is open to doubt.

The following are his arguments for doubt:


1. SEVERAL years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure in the sciences. But as this enterprise appeared to me to be one of great magnitude, I waited until I had attained an age so mature as to leave me no hope that at any stage of life more advanced I should be better able to execute my design. On this account, I have delayed so long that I should henceforth consider I was doing wrong were I still to consume in deliberation any of the time that now remains for action. To-day, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares [and am happily disturbed by no passions], and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions.

2. But, to this end, it will not be necessary for me to show that the whole of these are false--a point, perhaps, which I shall never reach; but as even now my reason convinces me that I ought not the less carefully to withhold belief from what is not entirely certain and indubitable, than from what is manifestly false, it will be sufficient to justify the rejection of the whole if I shall find in each some ground for doubt. Nor for this purpose will it be necessary even to deal with each belief individually, which would be truly an endless labor; but, as the removal from below of the foundation necessarily involves the downfall of the whole edifice, I will at once approach the criticism of the principles on which all my former beliefs rested.

3. All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived.

4. But it may be said, perhaps, that, although the senses occasionally mislead us respecting minute objects, and such as are so far removed from us as to be beyond the reach of close observation, there are yet many other of their informations (presentations), of the truth of which it is manifestly impossible to doubt; as for example, that I am in this place, seated by the fire, clothed in a winter dressing gown, that I hold in my hands this piece of paper, with other intimations of the same nature. But how could I deny that I possess these hands and this body, and withal escape being classed with persons in a state of insanity, whose brains are so disordered and clouded by dark bilious vapors as to cause them pertinaciously to assert that they are monarchs when they are in the greatest poverty; or clothed [in gold] and purple when destitute of any covering; or that their head is made of clay, their body of glass, or that they are gourds? I should certainly be not less insane than they, were I to regulate my procedure according to examples so extravagant.


Continued next post...




posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Continued from previous post...


5. Though this be true, I must nevertheless here consider that I am a man, and that, consequently, I am in the habit of sleeping, and representing to myself in dreams those same things, or even sometimes others less probable, which the insane think are presented to them in their waking moments. How often have I dreamt that I was in these familiar circumstances, that I was dressed, and occupied this place by the fire, when I was lying undressed in bed? At the present moment, however, I certainly look upon this paper with eyes wide awake; the head which I now move is not asleep; I extend this hand consciously and with express purpose, and I perceive it; the occurrences in sleep are not so distinct as all this. But I cannot forget that, at other times I have been deceived in sleep by similar illusions; and, attentively considering those cases, I perceive so clearly that there exist no certain marks by which the state of waking can ever be distinguished from sleep, that I feel greatly astonished; and in amazement I almost persuade myself that I am now dreaming.

6. Let us suppose, then, that we are dreaming, and that all these particulars--namely, the opening of the eyes, the motion of the head, the forth- putting of the hands--are merely illusions; and even that we really possess neither an entire body nor hands such as we see. Nevertheless it must be admitted at least that the objects which appear to us in sleep are, as it were, painted representations which could not have been formed unless in the likeness of realities; and, therefore, that those general objects, at all events, namely, eyes, a head, hands, and an entire body, are not simply imaginary, but really existent. For, in truth, painters themselves, even when they study to represent sirens and satyrs by forms the most fantastic and extraordinary, cannot bestow upon them natures absolutely new, but can only make a certain medley of the members of different animals; or if they chance to imagine something so novel that nothing at all similar has ever been seen before, and such as is, therefore, purely fictitious and absolutely false, it is at least certain that the colors of which this is composed are real. And on the same principle, although these general objects, viz. [a body], eyes, a head, hands, and the like, be imaginary, we are nevertheless absolutely necessitated to admit the reality at least of some other objects still more simple and universal than these, of which, just as of certain real colors, all those images of things, whether true and real, or false and fantastic, that are found in our consciousness (cogitatio),are formed.

7. To this class of objects seem to belong corporeal nature in general and its extension; the figure of extended things, their quantity or magnitude, and their number, as also the place in, and the time during, which they exist, and other things of the same sort.

8. We will not, therefore, perhaps reason illegitimately if we conclude from this that Physics, Astronomy, Medicine, and all the other sciences that have for their end the consideration of composite objects, are indeed of a doubtful character; but that Arithmetic, Geometry, and the other sciences of the same class, which regard merely the simplest and most general objects, and scarcely inquire whether or not these are really existent, contain somewhat that is certain and indubitable: for whether I am awake or dreaming, it remains true that two and three make five, and that a square has but four sides; nor does it seem possible that truths so apparent can ever fall under a suspicion of falsity [or incertitude].


Continued next post...



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Continued from previous post...


9. Nevertheless, the belief that there is a God who is all powerful, and who created me, such as I am, has, for a long time, obtained steady possession of my mind. How, then, do I know that he has not arranged that there should be neither earth, nor sky, nor any extended thing, nor figure, nor magnitude, nor place, providing at the same time, however, for [the rise in me of the perceptions of all these objects, and] the persuasion that these do not exist otherwise than as I perceive them ? And further, as I sometimes think that others are in error respecting matters of which they believe themselves to possess a perfect knowledge, how do I know that I am not also deceived each time I add together two and three, or number the sides of a square, or form some judgment still more simple, if more simple indeed can be imagined? But perhaps Deity has not been willing that I should be thus deceived, for he is said to be supremely good. If, however, it were repugnant to the goodness of Deity to have created me subject to constant deception, it would seem likewise to be contrary to his goodness to allow me to be occasionally deceived; and yet it is clear that this is permitted.

10. Some, indeed, might perhaps be found who would be disposed rather to deny the existence of a Being so powerful than to believe that there is nothing certain. But let us for the present refrain from opposing this opinion, and grant that all which is here said of a Deity is fabulous: nevertheless, in whatever way it be supposed that I reach the state in which I exist, whether by fate, or chance, or by an endless series of antecedents and consequents, or by any other means, it is clear (since to be deceived and to err is a certain defect ) that the probability of my being so imperfect as to be the constant victim of deception, will be increased exactly in proportion as the power possessed by the cause, to which they assign my origin, is lessened. To these reasonings I have assuredly nothing to reply, but am constrained at last to avow that there is nothing of all that I formerly believed to be true of which it is impossible to doubt, and that not through thoughtlessness or levity, but from cogent and maturely considered reasons; so that henceforward, if I desire to discover anything certain, I ought not the less carefully to refrain from assenting to those same opinions than to what might be shown to be manifestly false.

11. But it is not sufficient to have made these observations; care must be taken likewise to keep them in remembrance. For those old and customary opinions perpetually recur-- long and familiar usage giving them the right of occupying my mind, even almost against my will, and subduing my belief; nor will I lose the habit of deferring to them and confiding in them so long as I shall consider them to be what in truth they are, viz, opinions to some extent doubtful, as I have already shown, but still highly probable, and such as it is much more reasonable to believe than deny. It is for this reason I am persuaded that I shall not be doing wrong, if, taking an opposite judgment of deliberate design, I become my own deceiver, by supposing, for a time, that all those opinions are entirely false and imaginary, until at length, having thus balanced my old by my new prejudices, my judgment shall no longer be turned aside by perverted usage from the path that may conduct to the perception of truth. For I am assured that, meanwhile, there will arise neither peril nor error from this course, and that I cannot for the present yield too much to distrust, since the end I now seek is not action but knowledge.


Continued next post...



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Continued from previous post...


12. I will suppose, then, not that Deity, who is sovereignly good and the fountain of truth, but that some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me; I will suppose that the sky, the air, the earth, colors, figures, sounds, and all external things, are nothing better than the illusions of dreams, by means of which this being has laid snares for my credulity; I will consider myself as without hands, eyes, flesh, blood, or any of the senses, and as falsely believing that I am possessed of these; I will continue resolutely fixed in this belief, and if indeed by this means it be not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of truth, I shall at least do what is in my power, viz, [ suspend my judgment ], and guard with settled purpose against giving my assent to what is false, and being imposed upon by this deceiver, whatever be his power and artifice. But this undertaking is arduous, and a certain indolence insensibly leads me back to my ordinary course of life; and just as the captive, who, perchance, was enjoying in his dreams an imaginary liberty, when he begins to suspect that it is but a vision, dreads awakening, and conspires with the agreeable illusions that the deception may be prolonged; so I, of my own accord, fall back into the train of my former beliefs, and fear to arouse myself from my slumber, lest the time of laborious wakefulness that would succeed this quiet rest, in place of bringing any light of day, should prove inadequate to dispel the darkness that will arise from the difficulties that have now been raised.


Given these arguments, can anything be considered true and real? Can anything be considered beyond doubt?

[edit on 6/17/2008 by PsychoHazard]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I didnt read the snippets you posted but I´d have to agree that there is nothing that can be considered absolute, set in stone, forever.

There is nothing that is not allowed to be questioned.

Of course, for convinience sake we will pretend that some things are beyond doubt and assign different levels of probability from our current perspective.

Some say that everything changes and if we can find that one thing that stays forever, we will have found the ultimate truth.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Indeed, everything is open to doubt, the only thing that is not beyond doubt is how a person feels about something but one thing i think is particularly sad is that even in science some things are 'beyond doubt' for a lot of the scientists with their laws of physics. That is a bad thing because surely in science all options have to be open, that's even the theory behind science; no dogma's but in reality it is a different matter and it is holding us back in a way that religion did in the old days.

But personally i hold the value of 'i know nothing' pretty high in my life



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
...yes, obviously we are afraid of the vast and mysterious unknown and so we try to develop a "scientific-framework" to help us cope, gain some orientation and make it look to society as if we actually know what is what.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Knowing what is what is the easy part. Figuring out what is not, now that's the difficult bit.


I've always found Descartes to be amusing, if a little long winded. He seemed to really want to believe in things and had to keep reminding himself not to. The only real flaw in his argument for doubt is that he assumed that there could be a scientific method to verify things that would be above, and therby immune to, the inherent flaws of the senses. As I see it, within the framework of his arguments, there could be no such thing. Couldn't his theoretical god or demon just as easily influence the mind directly and thus create false results in any method one used to attempt to verify anything?

EDITED to fix spelling error.

[edit on 6/17/2008 by PsychoHazard]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoHazard
[. Couldn't his theoretical god or demon just as easily influence the mind directly and thus create false results in any method one used to attempt to verify anything?


...which is why its a pleasant state to remain completely open-minded and unattached to anything throughout ones entire life. Quite humorous state of mind actually.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Some say that everything changes and if we can find that one thing that stays forever, we will have found the ultimate truth.


The problem with that "is," we'd have to wait forever to find something that "stays forever." At what point can we stop observing and exclaim "this thing here, this thing here lasts forever?"



[edit on 17-6-2008 by Cadbury]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cadbury
The problem with that "is," we'd have to wait forever to find something that "stays forever." At what point can we stop observing and exclaim "this thing here, this thing here lasts forever."


Yes, we´ve been around observing the whole thing unfold for a very long time now.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes, we´ve been around observing the whole thing unfold for a very long time now.


I've been sitting here thinking hard about this since you posted it, Skyfloating, and I have to finally admit that I don't understand what you mean.

Sorry.

The 7th 66cl bottle of Stella is already underway, you see.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cadbury

I don't understand what you mean.

Sorry.



Thats alright. Apology accepted.

Enjoy your drink



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The only thing that can be beyond doubt? Well that should be the Doubt.

We should have a Universal Doubt, but really no one should doubt the doubt. I mean nothing can be known beyond a doubt except doubt itself.

What this means or implies I have no idea, but it unlike the doubt that inspired it can be doubted.
To Doubt really is to question. Nothing is beyond inquiry except inquiry itself. If one questions doubt is that not a paradox? How can one doubt Doubt? How can one question Question?

So yes there is at least one thing that can be known beyond a doubt, which of course is that constant of doubt. In other words the search for truth is a universal constant beyond doubt. So does that imply the quest for truth is The Truth or that The Question is the Answer? That I could doubt.

Ok I 'm going to go have an existential crisis now.






[edit on 17/6/08 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I'm sure that given time to think about it someone could construct a logical proof to question the doubt or to doubt the question.


Can you have an existential crisis while doubting the crisis?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
It is beyond doubt that I am typing on my keyboard "NOW".

It is not beyond a doubt that you believe me.

It's relative to the person with the doubt isn't it?

After all..."doubt" is just another one of those human things for explaining something we cannot ultimately or accurately describe....it's just a word!

Of course, I could be wrong



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
It is beyond doubt that I am typing on my keyboard "NOW".


Is it really beyond doubt? I'll give you that it may very well be beyond doubt that you perceive that you are (or at least were) typing on your keyboard, but isn't it just as possible that you were really zen fingerpainting, and that someone or something else actually typed your post? Maybe you're post isn't even actually there, and we've all had our perceptions altered so we think we see a post where there is none.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 


They are "your" doubts, not mine...



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Faith is without doubt. By definition, isn't it? I don't mean whether we have any or not, I just mean the word, "faith" is something that doubt doesn't effect.

Mathmatics come to mind as well....



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gatordone
Faith is without doubt. By definition, isn't it?


If you need to add a question mark, then NO...


And mathematics is always doubtful because we humans do the calculations and program the machines.

[edit on 19/6/2008 by nerbot]





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join