Arguments Against Cataleptic Impressions

The argument that there is no cataleptic impression is a sound argument based on the four claims given to us. When an impression is said to be cataleptic it means that it is so true that it cannot be doubted. Each given premise can be deemed true through reasoning; and through that very logic, we come to conclude that the argument against cataleptic impressions is a valid one. The arguments are as follows:
1. Some impressions are true and others false.
2. A false impression is not cataleptic.
3. If two impressions are indistinguishable, it is impossible for one to be cataleptic and the other not.
4. For every true impression it is possible for a false impression to be indistinguishable from it.
Therefore,
5. There is no cataleptic impression.
The first argument made is that some arguments are true while others are false. This statement is true because false arguments and impressions exist. We can use the example we used in class and say that there is a rope in a room that looks like a snake. The rope is not actually a snake despite the way it may look. This demonstrates that some impressions can be false depending on how one perceives it. This gives proof to the statement that there are false impressions.
This is also true because for something to be cataleptic it must be affirmed to be true. Let’s take the false impressions of the wiggling chair or the rope that looks like a snake as an example. We recognize that the chair is not wiggling and we also comprehend that the rope is not actually a snake. Therefore, these false impressions cannot be affirmed to be true. One could argue that they are confirmed to be false, but that is not the same as affirming something to be true. Confirming the falseness of something does not mean it is a cataleptic impression because we can doubt the