Comparing Zhuangzi And Descartes Views On True Knowledge

Descartes argued that all an individual can truly know is information that is irrefutable. Any knowledge that creates the slightest amount of doubt cannot be considered true knowledge. Contrary, Zhuangzi believed that there is no definite truth. He argued that one cannot truly know anything for certain because knowledge is individualistic. Both philosophers have different perspectives on what can actually be considered true knowledge; therefore, in my essay, I will be describing what one can truly know through the perspectives of both Zhuangzi and Descartes, and then further my explanation by comparing and contrasting both of the philosopher's perspectives.
Descartes argued that all an individual can truly know is the knowledge that is certain
Therefore, he states that the knowledge taught by tradition or authorities, such as a God, is not to be trusted, but rather trust in the knowledge obtained through individual experiences and reasons. For example, Descartes is skeptical of concepts such as math because he believed that one is just told that two plus three equals five, but no one can be certain that this is true. According to Descartes, an "evil genius of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me." As a result, Descartes believed that much of the knowledge individuals claim to know is not actually valid. All one can truly believe to be real knowledge is information that one can be certain of and then further build upon that foundation of absolute knowledge. Furthermore, Descartes stated that the knowledge obtained through the senses is not real knowledge because the senses can be deceiving and biased to
Each individual has their own experiences and interpretations of information and therefore, one cannot truly "know" anything for certain. With that said, Zhuangzi argues that knowledge should not be forced upon individuals because there is not a single truth, rather there are infinite truths. Each individual has their own truth and there is no single correct truth. Therefore, when knowledge is forced upon an individual, that knowledge is not true knowledge, it is only what one truth of another individual is. Zhuangzi further states that because of the varying truths, one must always be skeptical and not limit themselves to a single meaning of information. By questioning everything one believes to know, one travels beyond the boundaries. As a result, one is able to gain a deeper understanding of things, our own personal understanding because one experienced and interpreted it on our own rather than be told what is the "truth". Therefore, Zhuangzi is arguing that one must question and go beyond what they are told in order to experience it for themselves, which permits true knowledge. If one confines themselves simply to what they are told they have no true knowledge because one could not possibly assume that there is only one truth and that is the only one to be learned. According to Zhuangzi, one cannot assume that there is only one truth and that is why he argues against knowledge forced