Descartes Vs Pascal Essay, Research Paper

? Descartes vs. Pascal?

For centuries, human existences have been debating over the cogency of the usage of ground. This is a really, really hard topic to discourse, as one is forced to analyze something which is at that minute being used in their survey. Two authoritative minds who contrasted on their position of ground were Descartes and Pascal. Though both saw ground as the primary beginning of cognition, they disagreed over the competency of human ground. Descartes, the skeptic, said that we could utilize ground to happen certain truth if we used it right, while Pascal said that we can? t know certain truth, but ground is the best beginning of cognition that we have.

Descartes:

Reason is the tool by which we know everything that we know. But most people make the error of establishing their logical thinking on premises which are non known with 100 % certainty. As I? ve said, ? I am greatly astonished when I consider [ the great infirmity of head ] and its proneness to fall [ numbly ] into mistake? ( K & A ; B, p. 409 ) . But it is possible to avoid falling into mistake if we use the valuable tool of ground right. In order to make this and happen certainty, we must happen something that we can non doubt. This is impossible, as we can logically doubt anything. A certain truth must be something that is non logically possible to be false.

We must doubt, as that is the lone manner to happen certain truth. It is the lone manner to pass over the slate clean of all of the unsure premises which are believed and taught in the universities today. Merely as mathematics will take to unsure premises if it is non built on certain truths, so will all usage of ground lead to unsure premises if it is non built on certain truths. There is a manner to utilize uncertainty, though, to happen certainty. If 100 % certainty equals 0 % uncertainty and we are certain that we can doubt everything, so we can utilize uncertainty as our certainty. We can non doubt that we are doubting.

With our one certainty, we can now methodically use ground to happen more certainties. For illustration, we can utilize the certainty? I am doubting? to happen out that? I exist. ? If I am doubting, than there must be an? I? who is doubting, which means that I must be. Like I? ve frequently said, ? I think, therefore I am. ? We can go on constructing on our certainties utilizing rational logical thinking. Now that we know that we exist, we can logically infer that our thoughts besides exist. If our thoughts exist, so something has caused them to be. This is a really utile measure, because I can take my thought that a perfect being ( God ) exists. Since this thought is greater than myself, there must be a perfect being who has caused this thought in me. Continuing on, if there is a perfect God, than I can logically infer that a perfect being would non give me a delusory module. If we do non hold delusory modules, than we can cognize for certain that we can swear our senses with certainty.

The certainties that I have arrived at by get downing with the one certainty can be known with complete certainty because they were arrived at utilizing rational, logical logical thinking. It is true that we can doubt that God exists, yet this incredulity is superseded by reason. We used a rational statement which is based upon certainties ; hence, we know with 100 % certainty that God exis

T.

Pascal:

Rene Descartes must recognize that our universe is non similar mathematics. As I have stated, ? Let adult male see what he is in comparing with all being ; allow him see himself as lost in this distant corner. . . What is a adult male in the space? ? ( Pascal, # 72 ) . How can we anticipate to derive a clasp on certain cognition when we can non even hold on where we are in relation to all of world. Descartes was right in stating that ground is the footing of all of our cognition, but he must recognize that we have terrible restrictions in our usage of ground.

We have been deceived, as I? ve antecedently written, ? Man is merely a capable full of mistake. . . Nothing shows him the truth. Everything deceives him. These two beginnings of truth, ground and the senses, besides both desiring in earnestness, deceive each other in bend? ( Pascal # 83 ) . But, as I? ve besides written, ? Man is but a reed, the most lame thing in nature ; but he is a believing reed? ( Pascal # 347 ) . Therefore, our usage of ground is retarded, but we do hold ground and can utilize this ground to happen truth. We can doubt these? truths? as Descartes exhaustively explained, but we have no pick but to happen truth. As I? ve argued about the being of God, ? Shall he doubt whether he [ God ] exists? We can non travel so far as that ; and I lay it down as a fact that there ne’er has been a existent complete sceptic. Nature sustains our lame ground, and prevents it raving to this extent? ( Pascal # 434 ) .

We can swear our senses, as Descartes concluded, with the realisation that we can non trust entirely on empirical cognition. We besides have intuitive thoughts from which we learn truth. As I? ve said, ? The bosom has its grounds, which ground does non cognize. We feel it in a 1000 things? ( Pascal, # 277 ) . I think Descartes would differ with this based on the ability to doubt the feelings of the bosom. I hold true to it based on the fact that we can non cognize certain religious truths by the usage of our ground. We must larn of these things by the usage of intuitive cognition, recognizing that this intuitive cognition does non belie ground. Reason, in fact, supports the realisations that we receive from intuitive cognition.

Watson:

I agree with Pascal on his position of the capablenesss of ground. We are lame, misled animals in the thick of a world which we can non cognize. Descartes was right in his effort to utilize mathematical logic to acquire rid of unsure premises and happen truth, but he needs to recognize that most truth is beyond our range. We, as thought worlds, do hold the singular ability to analyze ourselves. Yet we have restrictions in this survey and can non anticipate to be able to acquire a complete appreciation of ourselves. Pascal was right on when he said that there are no complete sceptics. There are many things which we must accept, utilizing ground, that we can non turn out with certainty.

I don? t thin rather as far in Pascal? s way on his position of intuitionism. I believe that there is intuitive cognition which we know with our bosom. But this cognition is merely believed right when it is rationally processed. As with about everything, we must happen a balance between the usage of ground and intuition. We err on the side of believing unreasonably if we use excessively much intuition, we become excessively disbelieving if we ignore intuitive cognition.

32e