Summary Of Those Things That Can Be Called Into Doubt By Rene Descartes

In “Meditation One: Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called Into Doubt” Rene Descartes introduces his initial philosophical qualms, and begins to re-explore defining the foundation of his own knowledge. Though with each Meditation, Descartes initial ideas ultimately progress and evolve, this reflection will choose to analyze the First Meditation in isolation.This serves the purpose of allowing a concrete interpretation of Descartes ideas, without creating the exigence to discuss implications. Additionally, much of this interpretation will take into the account era relativism- noting the revolutionary nature of these writings for their time period. Within this Meditation, Descartes establishes a loose logical inquiry regarding the nature of consciousness. He notes there exist “no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep” (Descartes 41). This statement highlights the logical framework of certainty which Descartes employs in his analysis.
I interpret this statement as his premise for investigation. Without asserting this a universal truism, one can take this statement as true for the intent and purposes of exploring this line of inquiry. To elucidate, Descartes intends to
find a deeper understanding regarding the difference between the state of wakefulness from sleep. Further- and more central to his inquiry, he asks whether or not one exists in line with canonical understanding of existence at all. Because Descartes intends to reconstruct his base of knowledge entirely, his level of consciousness in doing so remains at the crux of initial investigation. In my interpretation of his intent, the potential to redefine consciousness can induce a radical shift in all which Descartes can categorize as knowledge. He may draw inquiry of whether or not one can gain or employ knowledge while in a dream state. He may also draw additional inquiry regarding the relevance of existing in one definitive state or another, and how this affects knowledge and its applications to his existence in of itself.
All of these potential routes of exploration evoke an interesting thought process to follow and contemplate. Following Descartes’ specific method of separating any tethers of accepted reality within his initial premise implore the reader to do so as well- a process which may bring them closer to the text. Descartes invites the reader to unhinge their predisposed thinking, and leave it at the door as he does. While many philosophers invoke this method, this portrays a rare case of one taking the reader on a journey with no actual knowledge of what conclusion they will land on.
To return to Descartes argument, he establishes his logical premise further, highlighting, “let us assume then, for the sake of the argument that we are dreaming” (Descartes 41).
In support of a partnership between the reader and Descartes, the specific language “let us assume” proves intentional in asking the reader to walk through this process with him. Assuming a dreamlike state creates a firm bifurcation in thought, as Western society traditionally assumes a state of wakefulness whenever conscious thought occurs. However, this premise allows Descartes to assert that regardless of one's’ personal state of consciousness, other truisms exist in their traditionally accepted form. He notes “For whether I am awake or asleep, two plus three makes five” (Descartes
42).
This asserted premise allows Descartes to arrive at two conclusions (within this Meditation alone). First, he remains certain of the possibility of existing in a state other than the traditional binary of awake and asleep. Second, he insists that this bears no effect on other established norms and information. These contribute to two interpretations. First, Descartes opens the realm of radical exploration of existence and consciousness, which I assert could lead to a fundamental shift in his perception of knowledge. However, he states that regardless of any conclusions regarding consciousness he reaches, some pieces of knowledge thought true will always remain true. This means that his perception of consciousness and how it affects knowledge cannot affect all knowledge.
My final analysis asserts that Descartes’ First Meditation sets the firm distinction that any discoveries in empirical knowledge will not necessarily affect the standing or perception of rational knowledge.