Descartes has a
method that begins by 'doubting everything'. Which among these do you think he
has in mind? Aristotle, The Bible and Aquinas?
The logical arguments of a Socrates defining justice?
In Descartes’ Preface
to the French edition, he makes it clear that he believes God cannot be
doubted. After describing the four types of receiving knowledge, he writes, “I
am not including divine revelation in the list, because it does not lead us on
by degrees but raises us at a stroke to infallible faith” (181). Later on in
the text, he states that “There is a God who is the author of everything there
is in the world; […] he is the source of all truth…” (184). Based on these
statements, it safely assumed that Descartes not only believes in God but also
that the word of God should not be doubted as it is inherently truthful. For
this reason, I do not think that he would include the Bible in his “everything”
that should be doubted. However, when discussing Plato and Aristotle, he states
that although both philosophers had a great deal of knowledge that they
received in all four ways, their disciples have either committed error in doubting
them to the point that they “extended [their doubt] even to the actions of life”
while others “took the side of certainty […] and trusted them entirely”
(181-82). Thus, it seems like Descartes has a great deal of respect for both
philosophers, but still believes we should doubt them to a certain extent. He
writes that “the truth lies midway between [the] two positions which are being
maintained”, so perhaps just the right amount of critical thinking will convey
the truth.
I think it should not be overlooked that Descartes turned upside the methodology of acquiring knowledge from other philosophers, but preserved without doubt the word of the bible. It is evident that Descartes whole-heartedly believed in skepticism from the ground up, except when that challenged religion. It's odd that Descartes would choose to raze all prior knowledge of epistemology, except when that entailed challenging Christian doctrine. This meant that Descartes did not, in fact, doubt everything, and that his philosophy might have been altered had he chosen to doubt the existence of God as well. When applying the existence of God as a known truth to learn other truths, the results will always differ than if God's existence were not a truism.
ReplyDelete