Subtitle: “What can be called into doubt”
The Basic principles are epistemological: They are coming off of empiricist principles (Hobbes; Aristotle). There are three steps in the Meditation
- The demolition of former beliefs.
- Introduction of the skeptical method of doubt
- The Three Skeptical Arguments being:
- The Argument from Ordinary Sense Perception (Illusion, mistakes)
- The Dreaming Argument (Doubting prima facie examples like ‘I’m moving my hand)
- The Evil Deceiver Hypothesis
1.Argument from Ordinary Sense Perception
This one is pretty self-explanatory. (It’s also interesting to note how example-driven the beginnings of this project are; Kant immediately dispels the use of examples, because it’s necessary due to addressing the problems of pure reason) E.x. I think that I see an oasis, its an illusion. Simple as
2. Dreaming Argument : As reconstructed through premises by Rafaella DeRosa
Reconstruction of the Dream Argument
(1) I believe in the past I have dreamed that I was perceiving various
physical objects at close range when it was false that I was really
perceiving any such objects;
(2) If there are no certain marks to distinguish the waking experience of
physical objects from dream experiences when I was deceived, I have
reason to believe my waking experience too may be deceptive.
(3) There are no such certain marks to distinguish the waking experience
from dreaming
(4) I have reason to suspect that waking experience may be deceptive
too; 1, 2, 3
(5) I have reason to doubt the existence of physical objects (for, at
present, we are supposing this experience to be the best foundation for
our belief in physical objects).
Alternative Reconstruction:
(i) I know that p only if I can rule out the possibility that I dream
that p
(ii) I cannot rule out the possibility that I dream that p
(iii) Therefore, I do not know that p
What is the difference between these two? Well, the amount of premises most definitely allows more room to doubt the reasoning. At this point however, we still run into the problem (With the first construction of the argument) That we are already assured of the distinction between waking and sleeping, such that the argument is self-defeating. This fault lies in the second premise 2.
Okay then let’s look at the reconstruction. By not making implicit distinctions between being awake or talking about criterion, but rather about holding an object of knowledge in regards to dreaming, we can make a more purely epistemological claim with the dreams.
3. Deceiver Argument
Descartes introduces the painter’s analogy which at first glance appears to resemble an empiricist’s argument. Even if I have a mistaken idea of things in the world, as paintings represent real things in the world, so even if I think imaginary things they are based on something real. So my ideas must come from experience. However, Descartes makes an interesting turn.
Descartes will say that it likewise supposes universal and general natures. What he’ll later call Tru and Immutable Essences. These are categories (in the colliquial sense, not categories of the faculty of understanding) of experience like size, duration, extension, and shape.
The difference between the dreamer argument and the deceiver is that the dreamer argument cannot doubt certain key features (Extension, duration, Figure) but only existential judgments (What about this cup here now, and its particualr shape and size, etc.). The deceiver argument precisely acknowledges these differences.
Rustle in the Bush 
Leave a comment