Cartesian Method

Words: 796
Pages: 4

The Cartesian method is comprised of two separate elements which are split into intuition and deduction. Intuition is a way of acquiring knowledge without the use of reason whilst deduction is the reasoning from one or more premises to reach a logical conclusion.
The first meditation opens up with the meditator reflecting on the number of falsehoods he has believed over the course of his lifetime. As a consequence of this he vows to wipe all the knowledge he has gained during his life and to start from the beginning at the foundations of his knowledge. The Meditator reasons that he need only find some reason to doubt his present opinions in order to prompt him to seek firmer foundations for his knowledge whilst destroying his previous opinions.
…show more content…
He states that he has dreamt of sitting by the fire and has been totally convinced that he was not dreaming. Though the sensations in his dream are fake he perceives that everything that we experience in our dreams are from our experiences whilst we are awake much like a painter, who even when drawing an imaginary creature the painter still uses his experiences of animals to create the creature such as a griffin which is the body of a lion with the head of an eagle and even when a painter creates something entirely new, the colours in the painting are still drawn from real experience. The meditator concludes that he can doubt composite objects but cannot doubt simple and universal parts such as shapes, colours and quantitative data. The meditator suggests that we can doubt studies on composite subjects such as physics and astronomy, whilst concluding that we cannot doubt studies based on simple things such as mathematics. “For whether I am awake or asleep, two and three added together are five, and a square has no more than four sides, It seems impossible that such transparent truths should incur any suspicion of being false” (Descartes and Cottingham, …show more content…
The meditator suggested that an omnipotent God could deceive us by taking the impossible and making it fact, giving the mathematical example of God making one plus one equals three, rather than one add one equals two. Most people would argue that God is omnibenevolent and therefore God would not deceive his creation, therefore it would be reasonable to presume that God would not deceive us, so we could suggest that God himself does not exist, however Descartes believed this to be false as it would mean that we would be more susceptible to deceit as we were not created by a perfect being. As a result of this the meditator states that because all of his beliefs have turned out to be false and that he has been deceived the meditator comes to the conclusion that a benevolent God would not deceive him; therefore he suggests that it is in fact a demon that is trying to deceive him, therefore the meditator begins doubting his senses so that he will not be deceived by the demon meaning that the senses that we rely on are in fact useless when it comes to gaining knowledge and truth, this idea is refuted by Francks who states that “The Demon only appears here at the end, as a kind of reminder to The Thinker not to slip back into their old habits of thought” (Francks, 2008). Hence the Demon in Francks opinion is not an actual figure but instead a reminder to the reader that