René Descartes presents many interesting ideas in his Meditations on First Philosophy, however I feel some of his ideas are contradictory and not well-established. Descartes continually brings up the problem that the senses are faulty so they cannot be used as solid evidence of certainty. His solution is to wipe out all of his opinions and reconstruct his ideas around the foundation of his beliefs. What are these foundations? I am led to believe that these very foundations were also created from "faulty senses." After all, where else would these foundations come from? One reads with the eyes and listens with the ears, both of which can be deceived. Of course I am in no way suggesting that the unreliability of senses provides proof that they should never be used to acquire knowledge. It merely seems that Descartes is reverting back to the very source of his problem. Eventually, wouldn't he return to square one; Once again discovering his senses deceived him and distorted his opinions, causing him to abolish them? Rather than drastically casting out all of his prior beliefs, it would have been more feasible for Descartes to accept the fallibility of the senses while being cautious of their deceptive capabilities. Even today scientific fields recognize that nothing can truly be proven, but there are methods used agree on the acceptance of a theory because it has not yet been disproved.
Additionally, Descartes is frustrated by the uncertain nature of philosophical readings yet he establishes that nothing is certain. Then Descartes tries to argue that although nothing is ever certain, in that there is always some grounds for doubt, our existence is certain. As inspiring and thought-provoking as his writings are, I feel that this faulty reasoning puts him at the same level with the philosophers that he was frustrated with in the first place. How do we know we exist? Due to our senses telling us that we are thinking, that we are being deceived, that we are breathing? If the senses are faulty enough to deem unreliable, than how can we make ourselves hypocrites by relying on their feedback to tell us we are existing? It seems unsound that Descartes chooses which senses to believe and in what situations. Ultimately, anybody can choose which sensations to trust and believe at what times. So Descartes may be deceiving himself in his ignorance to search for a non-existing "certainty."
Human perception is fallible. It is subjective to each individual. Perception is not what the senses actively take in, but it is the processing of sensory input, an interpretation of information. Nevertheless, one cannot actively decide that all senses should not be trusted without proving oneself a hypocrite. It is inevitable that at some point in time that the brain and senses will be trusted, otherwise we would cease to live our lives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am under the impression, though, that it should not be a question of if our senses deceive us, but more about the foundations of which we interpret our perceptions. Of course, these foundations or character traits such as honesty, loyalty, responsibility, etc. are taught through senses; thus we must come to a conclusion that at the most basic level possible, senses can not deceive. When you hear something, you hear it...it is only until your mind interprets it when you are deceived.
ReplyDeleteWe must question, then, our capability to (for lack of a better word) "deceive" our own senses. Our foundations of how we think, what we think about certain things and people, and the connotation and meaning we give to things must be questioned.