According to Descartes, we are more certain of our thoughts, the content of our minds, than we are of the world around us, and even of mathematical or logical truths. He uses 'methodological skepticism' to reach this conclusion.
What do you think about methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives, or do we do the opposite. In other words, do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methological skepticism is not a good strategy?
I think methodological skepticism is an interesting way to come to conclusions about reality, but I don't necessarily have an opinion about it. I think that many of us do follow the procedure but it all depends on who you ask.
I don't believe movies like "The Matrix" would have ever been made if we did not practice some form of Methodological Skepticism. However, there are many who accept what they experience at face value and never question them. In general terms, I think most of us are people who want proof that something exists. The textbook gave an example of evidence in court - how we cannot convict someone without physical evidence. Therefore, I would say we tend NOT to believe something until it becomes possible to believe them.
I do not feel that believing something until it is impossible to believe it is a good strategy because, as the book and Descartes even suggests, we can be easily deceived. Therefore, not believing something until there is proof seems like a "safer" way to approach the truth in the subject matter. I hope that made sense.
1 comment:
'Therefore, not believing something until there is proof seems like a "safer" way to approach the truth'
That does seem like a failproof approach, doesn't it? Although I do think it's hard to see how we could apply that in our everyday activities.
Post a Comment