2. Evaluate Descartes' method of doubt

In the past it might have been expected that a candidate would be able to say if Descartes was successful in overcoming his doubts in the rest of the Meditations but now, since Med VI is no longer part of the course, it is likely to be either a standalone question or somehow linked in with a question on the cogito.

In 2012 SQA asked a series of linked short answer questions:

At the beginning of Meditation 1 Descartes tells us what strategy he is going to use
(a) Describe the strategy that Descartes says he intends to use.
(b) Describe how Descartes implements this strategy in the rest of Meditation 1.
(c) Evaluate the arguments Descartes uses to arrive at the Cogito.

Evaluate Descartes' method of doubt

Exemplar answer.

1 ‘Method of Doubt’ refers to the strategy Descartes uses in Meditation I and the first part of Meditation II to find something that is certain. In the synopsis prior to the Meditations proper Descartes says that this method is designed to free us from all our preconceived opinions, provide the easiest route by which the mind may be led away from the senses and to ensure that anything we subsequently discover to be true is free from doubt. At the beginning of Meditation I he says he will withhold his assent from any opinion that is not absolutely certain. He will not set about doubting each individual belief but instead attack the basic principles on which his former beliefs rested. Central to this is an attack on the reliability of the senses.
2 It is common to read that Descartes is using sceptical arguments to ultimately prove the sceptics wrong. It is true that he wants to find something certain but his main target is Aristotelian empiricism. Again in the synopsis he emphasizes the need to doubt especially material things. This emphasis is seen in Meditation I for although he uses the deceiving god argument to doubt mathematics and geometry the emphasis is on the possibility that the meditator is mistaken in his belief that there is any kind of external world—that there is no earth, no sky and no extended thing. When the malicious demon is introduced there is no mention of doubting mathematics or reason but there is again an emphasis on doubting all external things including his own body.
3 If the deceiving god argument and malicious demon hypothesis can bring doubt on all things then a question arises as to why Descartes needed to bother with drawing attention to sensory errors and the possibility that life is a dream. The answer is that Meditation I is not just an exercise in proving a point but rather is an attempt to change the way people think. In the Replies he says he wants people to spend ‘several months or at least weeks’ considering these issues before moving on. The difficulty in getting people to change their way of thinking is highlighted by the way he introduces the malicious demon. He has already established with the deceiving god argument that doubts can be raised about all his previous beliefs and emphasises that this is a carefully thought out conclusion. However, in the role of meditator, he says the old opinions keep coming back and that is why he introduces the possibility of a malicious demon intent on deceiving us. As a psychological tool the demon is going to be more effective than the deceiving god.
4 Ultimately, it doesn’t matter that the sensory deception and dreaming arguments are not watertight for they are just being used to soften up the meditator so that the universal doubt of the deceiving god and malicious demon are more effective. However, they do also prepare the way for the possibility that we make mistakes even if there is no all powerful being.
5 Few will question that we are sometimes mistaken in the way we see things and it doesn’t really matter that the senses are often the means of correcting these mistakes. The crucial point is that the senses don’t always correct themselves and it is necessary to use reason to work out that the sun is much larger than it appears or that the Earth rotates around the sun rather than vice versa. A key reason for Descartes’ attack on the reliability of the senses is that he wanted to give a firm foundation to the new science exemplified in the work of Galileo
6 From a sceptical point of view the dreaming argument is the weakest argument in Meditation I. It may well be that when we are asleep we cannot tell that we are asleep but it doesn’t follow that when we are awake we cannot tell that we are awake. Indeed, it is only possible to have this discussion about dreaming because we can tell the difference! The argument might be salvaged by saying that our supposedly awake experiences are in some ways similar to a dream like state in that we are not perceiving the world correctly and that our dreams are really more like dreams within dreams but this isn’t the argument Descartes puts forward. In a sense, though, this misses the point. For Descartes the crucial thing is that even if the dreaming argument did work the dreams have to be of something and the truths of mathematics and geometry would still hold. The purpose of the dreaming argument is to highlight what it would fail to bring in to doubt and so prepare the way for the deceiving god argument.
7 By the start of Meditation II the meditator can say that even if there is a malicious demon absolutely intent on deceiving him in all possible ways that demon cannot make him doubt his own existence. It has been questioned whether Descartes has actually doubted everything—e.g. he knows what thinking is and what doubt is—but Descartes dismisses this saying that he only intended to rid the mind of ‘preconceived opinions’ i.e. those based on previous judgments. He accepts that it is impossible to rid the mind of all notions. After all, there has to be some cognitive content to engage in the activity of doubting. Descartes' purpose was to find certain knowledge of something existing and with the method of doubt ending in the cogito he seems to have achieved that. Even if there are aspects of the cogito that can be questioned — is he entitled to use the word ‘I’? — and even if it is not clear that he can build anything on this foundation, the cogito is more immune to doubt than the evidence of the senses and so, from that point of view, his method of doubt can be judged a success.

991 words

Notes

  1. In any essay it might be worthwhile to begin by defining any technical terms or phrases that are used in the question. In this first paragraph I am just clarifying what it is that is meant by 'method of doubt'.
  2. This paragraph clarifies the purpose of the method of doubt and argues that it is primarily aimed at the Aristotelian empiricists rather than the sceptics. It is worth noting that many texts will not mention the empiricists and will focus entirely on the idea that Descartes is trying to prove the sceptics wrong. For that reason it is important to present the case and not just assume the marker will immediately understand this interpretation.
  3. Notice that I am not just plodding my way through the method of doubt step by step. Instead, I am drawing back and commenting on the structure of the Meditation One. This enables me to both make an analytical point and at the same time let the marker know that I am fully aware of the various stages the reader is being taken through.
  4. This is a linking paragraph containing some brief evaluative observations that will be expanded on in the following paragraphs. It serves to put those later paragraphs into context. It also shows detailed knowledge of the text by mentioning the point that the doubt still exists even if there is no god.
  5. Some essays might spend a whole paragraph explaining how the senses sometimes deceive us and another whole paragraph criticising this by saying that the senses can correct our mistakes. I have captured all of this in one sentence and then gone on to give an evaluation of this criticism. I have also managed to link this evaluation back to Descartes' overall purpose.
  6. Again I begin by demonstrating to the marker that I am familiar with the standard problems with the dreaming argument and then spend time evaluating those standard criticisms.
  7. This is a fairly densely packed paragraph. I am letting the marker know that I understand the various criticisms mentioned but also manage to wrap up the essay by coming to a conclusion — that the cogito is more immune to doubt than the evidence of the senses — a conclusion that follows on appropriately from the way I set up the essay as an account of the method of doubt as a challenge to the Aristotelian empiricists.