Analyzing René Descartes’ View On The Problem Of Skepticism

Skepticism is something that individuals experience consistently. This quality is something that any given individual could encounter once a day. One way we truly express our skepticism is our contact with other people. When hearing a story, we listen carefully and figure out for ourselves if we think their account is accurate. When going through a magazine, endless promotions are put before you, frequently with deals you can't comprehend or start to accept.

The shopper might become skeptical about whether this bargain is too good to be true. The kind of skepticism in our philosophy textbook is different than the type of skepticism I just described. Philosophy, in itself, is a much more intense and though provoking subject- and the same could be said about skepticism in our daily life vs. skepticism in philosophy. In this essay, I will analyze skepticism in philosophy and how philosopher René Descartes viewed our skepticism, and also weaknesses and strengths within skepticism.

Philosophical skepticism can be defined as, “the view that human beings either do or do not or cannot attain knowledge (Horner & Westacott, p. 254).” Skepticism requires you to think about ourselves, how we think, how we are in this world, how it came to be, and how it all exists. The basis of skepticism is the beliefs of people. If someone sat down with their family and watched a television show. How would they know they were doing this and how could they prove it? Philosopher René Descartes had the same issue, the issue of the inability to prove that his beliefs were definitely true.

Descartes noticed that the things he believed could be “falsified”. René had multiple thought spirals about how everything could be proven untrue. In one of our discussion forums we discussed the idea that our brain could be in a vat. The brain would be connected to an extremely large and powerful machine that could input every reaction and response to make a simulation that would make the brain think it were human. Many individuals compare this to something from a video game, a move, or specifically The Matrix. This is a problem that philosophers research today. Philosophers point out that all attempts at disproving the “brain in a vat” scenario is flawed, but Descartes thought he found the solution for the experiment of comparison for his era.

Upon analyzation of his beliefs, Descartes discovered that there was a challenge in the justification of the beliefs. When he started the analyzation, he discarded all the beliefs he had, and he then examined everyone to try to find out if he could definitely prove them. He also wanted to be able to justify further beliefs from it. He attempted to explain all of this within an analogy of an apple basket. The analogy calls for you to imagine yourself with a basket full of apples, which represent your beliefs. Descartes had to empty his analogical apple basket of beliefs to be sure that all of the individual apples (beliefs) were just and able to be proven.

To continue with the analogy, he inspected all apples that were sat out of the basket, which essentially is he looking critically at his belief to make sure the belief could be adequately proven. In the case that any of the apples were to be rotten, if they had to be thrown out or not, it had the possibility of rotting the other apples and making them of no use. In layman words, the beliefs that were not able to be proven had to be thrown out or they could contaminate other beliefs and cause them to become useless and not able to be proven down the road. With this mindset, it was difficult for Descartes to prove any knowledge to be true. Descartes later found a belief that would be valid in all situations, one that was truly reliable: the belief that he knew he was able to simply think, thus he was in existence. He presented the idea about the ability to think related to his existence, now known as The Cogito (Newman).

Cogito, ergo sum translate from Latin for “I think, therefore I am.” René Descartes was a devout follower of Catholicism. Since he was such an adamant Catholic, he did not believe that God, the creator, could create all of the “craziness” in his studies with the proving of thoughts, beliefs, and the emotions that came with that. This brought him to configure that an evil being was responsible for the confusion; the evil being caused doubt and also caused it to be incredibly more challenging to determine what was correct and meant to be believed and what was not meant to be believed. Descartes believed that he was able to definitively prove the idea of The Cogito (I think, therefore I am/he could think, therefore he was).

He thought that if the evil being was making him confused in all of the situations, then he knew he had to be physically existing for the evil being to be trying to deceive him. He additionally thought that if the evil being was just tainting his beliefs in the slightest, he had to be existing (Britannica). Descartes ended up publishing Cogito, ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am”, which was the basis of his analyzation and other criticism for other beliefs and other ideas surrounding the apple basket. He established that whatever thinks, must exist. So, I think, therefore, I must exist. If you think, therefore you must exist (Horner & Westacott, p. 33).

Descartes’ base belief of Cogito, ergo sum was a way he used to prove if other beliefs of his were real or if had any proof to be skeptical of them. The possible doubt that God wasn’t real was one of his first doubts that he put to rest, since he was a Catholic. This is also the reason he had the idea of the evil beings in the world. Descartes thinking and thoughts still centered around Cogito, ergo sum. However, his thoughts and reasoning did have a few flaws. Descartes’ reasoning was “skeptical” and was solely based on omniscient qualities he saw within the world.

Since he had Catholic/Christian values, they shined through his reasoning in philosophy and his explanation on skepticism. To explain further upon his religious values, every part of his philosophical reasoning heavily relied on God’s existence for them to be functional. This is also displayed in the “evil being” situation explained earlier. This evil being only reason for existence, in Descartes’ eyes, was because he had no doubt that God would not put awful, fictious beliefs into his, among other Christian minds. Future philosophers would doubt pieces of Descartes’ work, which included Cotigo, ergo sum because of how strong it leans on God as the center of his reasoning and beliefs.

I would say that I probably lean towards The Cogito and Descartes’ reasoning behind the ideas and beliefs on skepticism. Skepticism is something that is deep, intense, and multi-dimensional. It is a concept that connects reasoning in philosophy that can be tricky to understand and the easier or everyday reasoning of regular people, who are not philosophers.

Skepticism’s problem does not have a solution of one belief, but maybe more than just one thing. This is the case with multiple problems in philosophy. I chose to focus on this topic since Descartes reasoning and criticism on the subject of skepticism was thought-provoking and honestly interesting. The points that are made, especially with Cogito, ergo sum, even though some of his thoughts had flaws, like for those who don’t believe in God or a God. For atheists, non-religious individuals, or followers of a non-Christian faith, Descartes’ findings on skepticism and the support behind them are hard to find justification for. But, Descartes’ research, most specifically, Cogito, ergo sum, is something that succeeding philosophers could base their work off of and even try to improve upon. The work Descartes did led to a better understanding of philosophical skepticism and how everyday people end up seeing the world.