Prior to
the Scientific Revolution predominantly only members of the church and the upper
class were educated. This left the rest
of society to learn by listening to their peers. Thanks to Descartes and his usage of the
natural light of reason, humans soon began to challenge this method, and were
able to realize the path to truth was through the use of reason. No longer
should something be true simply because one was told it was true. In class we discussed Descartes and how he was
able to redefine the standard of truths.
This begins in his first meditation, in which his methodology of
universal doubt, which claimed he could not believe anything he had at one
point learned or been told if there was any doubt. He then threw away many truths perceived by his
sense because, as seen in the stick in a cup of water example, one’s sense can
deceive them. As a result of this
universal doubt I began to wonder what should I begin to doubt?
An example
of an event that I had never before even considered doubting, which was brought
up in class was the Holocaust. For the
sake of my point I ask what proof or truth do I alone behold that makes me
believe without a doubt the event occurred?
Descartes doubted everything he was told by opinion and had not experienced
for himself, so since I was not there I am not sure how to know without a doubt
it occurred. A textbook telling me or
watching a TV show seemed to have been enough for me before, but I have never
met a survivor and was not alive in Germany to witness the Holocaust. I am not trying to say the Holocaust did not
happen, but how can I know with certainty that it did happen? At this point in time I am skeptical that
there is any actual way to prove this truth, and this goes for almost anything
else in the world. Whether it is history
or a current event, if I did not see for myself how can I with complete
certainty believe it?
What could
one argue against these bloggers who believe this so passionately? http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t553062/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile our senses are not completely reliable, our thought is. The one thing we can know is that we ourselves are thinking things. Based on our own reason and judgments, we can determine just how reliable the information we gain outside of ourselves is. When I overhear a person -who I know through my experience and see through my (slightly faulty) sights but discern through reason- say something they believe to be fact, I can determine how likely it is for them to be right. When I read many books and watch many documentaries on the Holocaust, I can determine for myself that there is little to no reason to doubt the fact that it happened.
ReplyDelete(That blog is terrifying, by the way.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Luke that the whole point of adopting an extreme skepticism for Descartes is just to build from the bottom of knowledge, without any interference from other ideas, up to what he truly know as knowledge. Scientific revolution is bound to be a confusion time when people are just coming up with scientific methods, that may be ingenious in some cases and unsystematic, erroneous in the other. The same thing happens in metaphysics. Descartes just want to clear out the clouds blinding the truth and see if he can prove the truth of God's existence based only an axiom, something that has to be true, independent on the circumstance. This axiom turns out to be "I exist".
ReplyDeleteConcerning history, It's not practical to doubt the occurrence of big events that left large amount of evidence. One reason that we learn history is to gain common knowledge with other people in our society. If we know history differently than they do, we might have difficulty understand each other at times. It does not make a difference for some commoners to be conspiracy theory believers just for fun, as long as it does not take up the whole population. I feel one should have the freedom to believe whatever they want to as long as no one is mentally traumatized or physically hurt in the process. This may amount to limiting people voicing their opinions when it is traumatizing. However that's another matter. More often than not, history is tweaked and fabricated by others. Such as in the case of Comfort Women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women).
If I were I Japanese, practically speaking, I'll just say whatever others are saying about comfort women even if I believed Japanese government really forced women from other asian countries to be military prostitutes. I'll just have to hold it sometime, when I know no one will like me if I tell them they are wrong, especially when it comes to national pride for the Japanese. I can never find out the real truth about history. It's a job for the historians to connect the dots and to come close to it. If I'm not a historian, I'm not obliged to know the truth, but it is useful for me to know the popular opinions.