Paul Orville Tronco Rationalism 4PHL A Critique on Rene Descartes Meditations Cogito Ergo Sum, the most famous

s line a typical man recalls whenever they hear Rene Descartes name. Commonly translated as, I think, therefore I am, this quote provides curiosity considering that it was also not delivered in simple and common language. Descartes argues that in order to find the truth and real, he must first doubt everything. And through the method of doubt he deducts each foundation of his former beliefs and from then he could start acquiring certain and indubitable knowledge. And in the process he was able to conclude something the only idea he can be sure of is that which he was able to think. In compliance to such conclusion he admitted that any idea and feeling which comes from the senses is not to be trusted, for it is by the virtue of prudence not to trust anything which has ever deceived us in the past.

On the imprudence on trusting the senses: I could go on believing with what Descartes concluded, that the senses has deceived me multiple times in the past, that through my dreams I could be anything I could ever be, that shoes have wings, that teleportation is accessible through phone booths and the like. Even at some point, even at my most awake moments I am deceived by my senses, often deceived whenever I watch tricksters do magical

illusions, or even mistaking to consider that a vaccination using needles are more harmful than they are helpful, etc. I must agree with Descartes on this, that in as much as the senses help us acquire knowledge, they deceive us as often. But, I could not agree on the fact that it is not to be trusted anymore since it has deceived us for so many times. Putting it in the context of a father and son relationship, a father would not allow his son to grow up a sinner and/or a liar; he has to serve as a good example. But on several occasions he has to lie to his son, telling him he could not buy him the toys he wants to have because they can be harmful, instead of telling him they do not have money; or he could not take him out and bring him to his fathers office because their boss is a monster, instead of making him realize that it is inappropriate for a child to be in an office and that it is not a playground. On these occasions the childs

understanding could not fathom the real rationale behind the occurrence of such a decline of his father on his requests. satisfaction and convictions. Like the father who wants his son to grow up well, the senses were created for us to arrive at beliefs and truths which we could hold on to, while living. It is an instrument much like a father, who raises you up not for you to become evil, but on the other way around. But a father could not be compared to the senses because the father has his own way of thinking and the senses are almost always on the go and does not have to think of how it will appropriate a feeling to a person. My answer to that would be, a father by his nature is almost on the go and by his own accord he does not have to think a lot in order to raise his son and teach him how to appropriate himself in several occasions. His understanding only covers his personal

So from a few years after the son knew of all the realities and lies that his father has been an example of, do you think he has no reason to try to believe in his father anymore? Now that he was sure that his father has deceived him in his childhood and still has the capacity to do so, even when he grows older, do you think he would not trust him? NO. This is because he knows that there was a greater reason behind the lies, same as much as the senses, it is imperfect but it always aims for a certain goal. For if the senses deceive of us for any greater reason, it may have to be that we always have to be aware of the facts of self-verification and re-verification. Self-verification for the matter if learned, understood and done, will teach a man to be responsible for his own actions, to be answerable to most if not all of his consequences. Re-verification does almost just the same, it only provides an extra reminder that a man is always accountable for what he chooses to be, and how he chooses to do so, therefore providing him a personal assurance of acquiring an idea that is clear to his own reasoning, and if found erroneous he has no one to blame but himself. And so the cycle goes on, a father lies to his son because he knows he will understand the greater and more important rationale behind all those lies when he becomes a father himself; the senses lie to us and serves as a mentor for us to be responsible, hard working and most importantly to learn the virtues of temperance, courage and wisdom.

On the method of doubt: As most of us know Descartes was obsessed with the notion of doubt. Since I have already rejected Descartes conclusion that the senses are to be rejected and considered null, therefore I have yet to make a conclusion on my take on his notion of doubt. Doubt was for Descartes the only way in which we could arrive in the indubitable, certain and true. As I have argued earlier, the senses though deceiving is still a source of truth, though not the highest truth. Descartes doubted everything, every major foundation of all his beliefs, and found that each has a reason for doubt, that the level of questionability goes on to as far as the senses are involved in each foundation. And since he presupposed that the senses are nothing but naught, he did not go on producing some kind of truth in each sense, forgoing of any possibility of a discovery. In this regard I disagree. However the method in which Descartes seems successful in eliminating any physical and intuitive matter. What kind of knowledge is that which we can have no room for doubt? It is a kind of knowledge which was tried by doubt itself. As Descartes concluded the Cogito is that which has no room for doubt. It first rids of all sensual objects and even the sensual groundwork, per se. And this serves as a characteristic needed for the

consideration of a certain and indubitable knowledge. On a personal basis, a friend once asked me, Was there ever a time that you forgot or you stopped thinking? After a brief recall and realization, I was able to

conclude that there was never in my past that I stopped thinking, or my mind just went on blank and there was nothing. We could say that at times we do not think of anything, but still when we realize that there was nothing in our minds then we must be thinking that there was really nothing; therefore there was something that goes on our mind and we are thinking. Recent scientific knowledge claims that even while asleep the, the brain is working; and evidence to such is the existence of our dreams. We never cease to think, it is one faculty of the human nature that never ceases to work. Aside from the scientific proofs that thinking exists and it never even stops, I believe that it is some kind of evidence that Descartes was right in his conclusion that the fact that he thinks, is a proof that he exists. That to think is to exist. However, I do not believe that thinking is the only way by which one could prove that he exists. There are multiple realities and thinking is not the sole reality. For there are for me, imperfect realities, and that sense perception is one of them. It is a proof of existence; it is a proof of life. For life is imperfect itself, it does not beg a perfect and indubitable proof as an evidence, too. All in all, I believe and agree with Descartes methodic doubt as a source of the indubitable truth. But his conclusion that it is the only evidence of existence, that I have to reject. In its undeniable that even in our dreams we conceive of some ideas, and it is impossible to create and have an idea so distinct to reality, there must be some ground for truth. There ought to be some attachment to the physical world. As Descartes put it,

even when painters try to create new creatures, that particular depiction must be rooted to some truths, like the colours, shapes, attributes, and the rest. For me, Descartes methodic doubt must be the beginning for the search of truth, but we must also accept that other sources of knowledge have some ground for truth and to reject it entirely is almost an unintelligent act of intellectual activity.