Descartes Argument For Knowledge

Introduction In this paper, I will argue Descartes’s conclusion in Meditations, that it is possible to gain knowledge, is flawed and incorrect based on his faulty reasoning. First, I will restate Descartes’s logic for believing knowledge is possible. Next, I will introduce flaws I can see surrounding his argument and show the weakness of his position. Finally, I will give my reasons for supporting the notion that it is not possible to gain knowledge beyond the notion that I am a thinking thing.

Descartes’s Argument Descartes’s argument for knowledge is based on skepticism; he doubts everything in order to find something he cannot doubt, something unshakably true; he concludes that the only thing we can know for sure is that “I exist”, that
Despite the regained world, Descartes does not prove and return to the point before his doubting, questioning sense perception and declaring clear and distinct perceptions the hallmark of truth, or the grounds of knowledge. The question of free will manifests itself in this conclusion: if we knew something clearly and distinctly there would be no choice in life: the truth would be laid out in front of us and there would not be a way to unlearn or regard it is false because in its very nature it is true. This is the basis of his knowledge: skepticism in order to find something undoubtedly and unshakably true. We may believe we know something, but a belief can be founded on false grounds without the believer knowing. Without full knowledge, there can never be any knowledge at all, and as Descartes has laid out, only an infinite, perfect being can have full knowledge; however, since God is not a deceiver, our “clear and distinct perceptions” have to be true according to
Although sensing something clearly and distinctly may appear to be the best and truest version of the thing being sensed, there will always be a question of whether the perception is reality that cannot be fully answered beyond belief (not knowledge). When something is perceived, it either represents or does not represent the external world truly; however, there is no way to truly know if the perception is the former or the latter. We must use our senses to passively receive input and experience the world around us, but our senses are not perfect. Senses need to be trusted in order to function, but they can and do fail us often. Experiencing and perceiving a corporeal object clearly and distinctly does not translate to the object existing. Some sort of connection beyond myself needs to be made in order to truly know if the object does or does not exist. I can believe the object exists solely based on my senses, which I often do in order to live in the world, but if the object does not exist (I could be dreaming, or be a brain in a vat), then my belief does not mean anything. Knowledge, therefore, does not automatically come from a clear and distinct