Josephine Wittfeldt

7/30/2019 Josephine Wittfeldt

1/4

Josephine Wittfeldt

Theory of Knowledge

Dr. Corbin Fowler

Philosophical Certainty

To understand the idea of certainty, we must first understand the difference

between certainty and knowledge. Certainty is the highest form of knowledge; it

encompasses an epistemic property that is superior to just knowledge. The full value of

certainty is surprisingly hard to capture; however, it is important for our ability to

understand any type of knowledge at all. One philosopher in particular, Rene Descartes,

dedicated his entire life to this quest.

Descartes was born 31 March 1596 in LaHaye, a town in the south of France. At

age eight, he attended a Jesuit college where he studied literature, grammar, science,

and mathematics. He went on to Poitiers University at age 15 to study civil and canon

law. Although a published mathematician, Descartes eventually decided to join the

military so he could travel the world. A true Renaissance man, it is his later

philosophical writings that have had a lasting impact on todays intellectuals.

Descartes came to believe that it is the ability of our intellect to understand things

certainly. Scholars note him as the father of foundationalism, or the idea of finding a

foundation for knowledge. The opposite belief is called skepticism, a school of thought

that uses skeptical arguments to explain why we rarely or never have certain

knowledge. Skepticism does not allow for further exploration, whereas foundationalism


2/4

allows one to obtain knowledge, which can then be used to solve other problems such

as the ontological "nature of being", the Mind-Body relationship, and the metaphysical

question of Gods existence

In his first meditation, Descartes wants to establish something in the sciences

that was stable and likely to last, meaning that he wanted to define how we come to

reliable understanding. He tests his theory of knowledge by using a method of doubt

and analysis. His method of doubt involves posing increasingly skeptical hypotheses,

which call into doubt classes of knowledge claims. Descartes has three different ways to

classify knowledge: with the senses, with the imagination, and with reason.

In his first meditation, he concludes that he exists and is a thinking organism

declaring, Cogito Ergo Sum, that is, I think, therefore I am. He initially questions

reality because he understands that it all may be a deception. He comes to understand

this by knowing that his senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch) may be

deceived easily, and therefore are unreliable as a basis for understanding anything that

is absolutely certain. This knowledge is a priori, in other words, it is not inferred from

anything and is immediately obvious. He reiterates the point In so far that I think I am, I

am. This means that if he has the ability to perceive his thought processes, then he

must exist in order to have thought at all. Descartes posits a thought experiment, which

asks readers to close their eyes and try to imagine that they do not exist. It cannot be

done, of course, because by the very act of thinking the thought "I don't exist" readers

prove their own existence. If they did not exist, there would be no thinking entity to be

having the thought "I don't exist". This makes ones own existence evident a priori, that


3/4

is, it is innate knowledge that does not rely on anything outside of the human mind. Our

existence is then, un-doubtable.

From this knowledge, he begins to define what does and does not exist - defining

the essence of material objects. He concludes that to qualify as material it must be

flexible, movable, and extended in space and time. This is where Descartes infamous

wax analogy comes in, arguably his finest distinction between the perception of the

senses and intellect. He states that wax has certain characteristics that are used to

identify it as wax. It feels, looks and smells like wax - so conclusively it must be wax.

However, if when melted, it may burn and turn black. Alternatively, it could melt and

give off a different smell, however, it is still wax, and there is still no problem identifying

it as such.

Since wax is recognized as wax even when the human senses might fail to

recognize it as wax from is characteristics, Descartes concludes that these

characteristics are not inherent to the wax itself. They are categories, rather, tools of the

mind to deduct what a thing is. We learn to link assorted traits to certain items in order

to identify them as things that exist. However, this is totally abstract from the thing itself.

Another way to understand this example is to apply it to humankind. Minds and bodies

change rapidly over the extent of a lifetime. However, what stays the same throughout

is the idea of the self, and our ability to be self-aware. Descartes uses this kind of

deductive reasoning to understand all areas of reality and perception that he dissects in

the Meditations.


4/4

In the third meditation, Descartes applies his deductions to the human ability to

perceive. He explains that we directly perceive ideas. Our ability to perceive anything is

caused by objects emitting ideas from themselves in the external world. This, he

argues, is also something that we understand certainly. Descartes rule of thumb for

knowing that something is certain is clarity and distinctness, meaning that if an idea is

certain it must be clear and distinct. He believed that if we used the minds faculties as

they were intended, we could trust them. Further on in the Meditations, he concludes

that this is the most reliable rule because God exists and is no deceiver. This is also

how Descartes knows for certain that God exists.

Descartes had, what to him, was a linear argument for the existence of God.

However, this is the inherent flaw in the Meditations. It becomes a circular argument

when he bases his own awareness on the existence of God, but also infers that the

existence of God can only be understood through Descartes being aware. Descartes

certainty fails him his knowledge that God exists cannot be certain, cannot in fact

encompass that epistemic property that is superior to just knowledge. Descartes desire

to prove that God exists ultimately blinded him to the fallacy in his own reasoning.

Documents

Josephine Wittfeldt