FREE ESSAY ON DESCARTES: ORIGINS OF KNOWLEDGE

DESCARTES: ORIGINS OF KNOWLEDGE

Descartes believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single
indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. In the
first meditation he casts doubt on the previous foundations of knowledge and everything
he has learned or assumed. He says "But reason now persuades me that I should withhold
assent no less carefully from opinions that are not completely certain and indubitable
than I would from those that are patently false." In order to evaluate and discern what
is actually true he divides the foundations of knowledge into three sources: the senses,
reality, and context. In the second meditation he has found one true fact "I think, I
am". Descartes then attempts to discover what this "I" is and how it perceives reality.
The "I" is a body, a soul, and a thinking thing. It gains perception and recognition
through the senses, the imagination, and the mind. He runs into two major problems in
these meditations. One is the existence of reality. Two is the connection between body
and mind as he defines them.
Descartes is clearing away all knowledge that can be called into doubt. By doing this he
hopes to create something real and lasting in the sciences, a foundation to build on.
This indisputable fact will become the starting point or origin of all other true
knowledge he can build upon it.
He starts the first argument by attacking the very beginning of knowledge, human senses.
Descartes states, "Surely whatever I had admitted until now as most true I received
either from the senses or through the senses." Anyone will admit that their senses have
deceived them at least once. According to Descartes it is a mark of prudence never to
place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once. However, something seen
from a distance is much more easily mistaken than something seen up close. The senses
show us some things more clearly than others. Descartes then compares the average mind to
that of the insane. Insanity, he defines as those who doubt what is obvious to the
senses. From this perspective we must give our senses some credence, otherwise we could
not function in reality.
At this point Descartes questions how we can know that the reality we perceive is true.
He likens it dreaming "How often does my evening slumber persuade me of such ordinary
things as these: that I am here, clothed in my dressing gown, seated next to the
fireplace-when in fact I am lying undressed in bed!" There is no way to distinguish
between being awake and asleep. Perhaps, even now we are dreaming, this not my body, and
I am not writing this paper for philosophy but I am really lying in bed somewhere
sleeping. However, dreams are based on reality. Whether this hand is real or dreamed, it
is my hand, and it exists somewhere. Also, certain things are true in any context. Two
plus three equals five and in no context can it be said to be untrue. The power to
distinguish cannot be called into doubt as long as we hold that there is a reality
whether we perceive it or not.
This brings up the question, does there exist a true reality. Assuming that there is a
God, he is all powerful, and created this world; Descartes asks "How do I know that he
did not bring it about that there is no earth at all, no heavens, no extended thing, no
shape, no size, no place, and yet bringing it about that all these things appear to me to
exist precisely as they do now?" Without a guarantee of reality, maybe context, in
general is wrong. He doubts the supreme goodness of a God that would let him be deceived
even occasionally. And if there does not exist a perfect God then it becomes more
probably that he himself is increasingly imperfect. Descartes will assume the worst
scenario, that God is really an evil genius. Therefore he must treat all external things
as traps and deceptions.
By the second meditation Descartes has found the fact he is looking for, "I think, I am".
The simple fact that he thinks, which cannot be doubted, is the proof that he exists.
Even if there is an evil genius deceiving him, the fact that there is some thing to be
deceived proves that he exists. But what is this "I"? Of what parts is it made of and how
does it relate to reality, or a perception of it?
The "I" is made of several parts. The first he recognizes as a body. He has hands, arms,
and feet that he can easily claim as his own. Descartes recognizes them as the same parts
as can be seen on a corpse. He describes a body as "…all that is capable of being
bounded by some shape, of being enclosed in a place, and of filling up a space in such a
way as to exclude any other body from it; of being perceived by touch, sight, hearing,
taste, or smell; of being moved in several ways, not, of course, by itself, but by
whatever else impinges upon it." The body cannot sense, move, or think on it's own these
attributes belong to the other parts. The ability to eat, move, and sense can all be
linked to the soul. However, although Descartes can state these characteristics of the
soul he cannot define nor claim to understand it. He likens the soul to wind, fire, or
ether none of which he can deny or explain. The last and most important part of the "I"
is the mind. It is the thinking thing that proves his existence. An evil genius could
trick him into believing this body is his when it is not, but his mind cannot be replaced
nor absent without a loss of existence. Also, the mind and soul can sense and move, as
they do in dreams, while the body remains motionless, almost absent. 
Now, he has some understanding of what the "I" is, but how does it relate to, function
in, and perceive reality? What faculties does the "I" use to recognize and judge things?
It can sense things through seeing, smelling, tasting… It can also imagine, which
is "…the contemplation of the shape or image of a corporeal thing."
Descartes uses wax as an example to show how the "I" recognizes and evaluates things. A
piece of wax has a color, shape, and size that are obvious the senses. It is hard and
cold; when you knock on it, it emits a sound. These things he says "…enable a body
to be known as distinctly as possible." Now, when the wax is brought close to the fire it
changes. It has lost its smell, the shape is disappearing, its size is increasing, and it
has become a hot liquid. When you knock on it, it no longer emits a sound. "For whatever
came under the senses of taste, smell, sight touch or hearing has now changed; and yet
the wax remains." Perhaps, the wax was never how it appeared to the senses but simply a
body that was once manifest in these ways and is now manifest in others. As the
imagination grasps it, an extended, flexible, and mutable body that is capable of many
changes. Even so, the wax is capable of innumerable changes that it is impossible for one
to imagine them all through the imagination. Descartes concludes "Therefore this insight
is not achieved by the faculty of imagination." The wax is not perceived through the
senses or the imagination but through the mind alone. It is an inspection of the mind.
This inspection is not infallible and its accuracy is dependant upon the attention and
speculation given to the subject. Thinking is merely judging, reaching conclusions and
assumptions based on connections. 
Another example would clarify what is meant by "judging and perceiving through the mind
alone." Were you to look out the window and watch people crossing the street, you might
say that you see the people themselves through the faculty of sight. But what you
actually see is clothes, hats, and the like. You perceive these people through an
inspection of the mind alone. 
What things apply to the perception of wax or people can be applied to all things
external. If his perception of things becomes clearer once he knows what faculties and
reasons are used then he becomes that much more distinctly known to himself. He states,
"For there is not a single consideration that can aid in my perception of the wax or o
any other body that fails to make even more manifest the nature of my mind."
Now, as to the problems Descartes creates with his explanations and arguments. It is not
so much falsities he states but the omission of clear explanation and justification. The
first problem is with reality and existence. He proves his existence in that he thinks,
that some separate self consciousness must exist somewhere in order for any thought to
take place. He has already cast a shadow over the validity of reality and whether this is
a true reality he perceives. Descartes never refutes his own arguments of reality; and
yet he includes a body and a soul as part of the "I" in "I think, I am." The body and
soul are directly linked to reality as he perceives it, the body is his physical
extension to reality and the soul is the senses and faculty of motion inside reality. How
would these be part of the "I" if reality is but a deception and the only thing that can
be proven is that he exists as a thinking thing?
Another problem Descartes faces is a connection between the mind and the body. Exist
means to stand outside. The mind has no extension; it takes up no physical space, does
not exist in a place, and is not limited to a place or time. It can travel at will to
another place. The mind can travel in time to plan ahead or reflect back. The mind, in
effect, stands outside reality and can readily be proven to exist. The body is defined
entirely by extension and location. It does not even necessarily exist and has none of
the properties of the mind. How then are these two things connected? Descartes never
explains this except to say that they are.
Descartes origin of knowledge comes from personal reflection, a meditation. He evaluates
and questions his own existence and cannot continue until he proves and has an
understanding of it. Even though he can prove his own existence he can't prove anything
outside of it. To Descartes all true knowledge is solely knowledge of the self, its
existence, and relation to reality.