Descarte and Pierce Essays

Descarte and Pierce Essays Descarte and Pierce Essay Descarte and Pierce Essay Descartes and Peirce both believe in belief and doubt. However, Peirce argument and determination to find a solution to overcome doubt is much stronger than Descartes’. Peirce also makes it known that he is aware of belief in which Descartes does not. Their beliefs result from the notion of clear and distinct ideas. Peirce and Descartes are both rationalists who believe that there is an independent truth and they know it when they see it. The problem that exists is that Descartes and Peirce realize that their senses and ideas could lead to rejection and doubt. The difference between Peirce and Descartes argument is that Peirce argues that to understand the effects of something is to understand what it is. Peirce uses the example of objects which I think is very clever. From the notes it is stated, â€Å"Peirce asks if a hard thing is always hard or only hard when it comes in contact with an object†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Even though Peirce was confused as to what the answer or explanation was, he gave a good justification and explained that one has to understand the effects of things. Descartes believes in the method of hyperbolic doubt which expresses the doubt of any belief that he finds reason to do so. The reason why Descartes believes in the method of hyperbolic doubt is because his senses seemed to have failed him in the past. Therefore, he is not sure if he can trust his senses. Unlike Peirce, Descartes was always skeptical of what he was trying to find. However, his goal was to get rid of the beliefs that caused him to be so doubtful. Peirce has four methods that he tested to lead to belief over doubt. He uses these methods through the concept of inquiry which is to settle doubt. The method of tenacity explains that one should chose to belief whatever they want no matter what the odds may be. The second method that Peirce explains is authority which is the process of believing what is told believe and having to stick to it. The method of rationality is the process of believing what is reasonable. Peirce decided that none of these methods that he tested led to belief over doubt. He realized that the method of empirical investigation was the best method that resulted in belief over doubt. Empirical investigation is to be tested along with a belief and presented (21-22). He explains that this method proves that in reality we can have reasoning of how things really are according to perception. I think that Descartes would say that he agrees with Peirce to a certain extent. Peirce seems more determined to fight for belief than Descartes. However, I think that Descartes would argue that he is encouraged to avoid skepticism. Descartes defines senses as a part of the process of thinking. He also explains that we can use our senses to help us understand the true nature of things. Descartes struggled with doubt and his senses when he used his ontological proof that God existed. For example, he explains that he is aware that he is not perfect and he makes mistakes. He understands that he must know what perfect is in order to give someone the title. He knew that something perfect lead him to have these ideas and that it must exist. His definition of perfect is unique without the knowledge of anyone else and he defined it as God. For example, Descartes believes that God is perfect and deception is a sign of imperfection. Therefore, Descartes came to the conclusion that God cannot deceive. This example shows that Descartes did struggle to accept his own belief without doubting himself. His ontological argument proved, to Descartes, that through God everything must be true. However, he also starts to question whether existing is even through. He even explained that he had a dream and it turned out to be real. In reality, dreams are not real. Unlike Descartes, Peirce believes that with tenacity people can come to a conclusion of what is true rather than be doubtful. Peirce and Descartes both seem to believe that doubt and belief have different effects on humans but they are positive at the same time. For example, in the book Pragmatism in the section The Fixation of Belief by Louis Menand he states, â€Å"Belief does not make us act at once, but put us into such condition that we shall behave in a certain way, when the occasion arises† (13). In this section, Peirce continues on to explain that doubt can lead one to struggle to believe the truth. My position on the issue at stake is that Peirce and Descartes both have some similarities in their positions about belief and doubt. However, Descartes gives me every reason to continue to think that he is confused with life. First, he doubts his existence on earth. Second, he doubts the existence of God and his own physical being. The reason why I am more so on Peirce’s side is because he basically explains that one must have a clear perception on how to believe and have a belief so that they one can eventually understand the meaning of reasoning. It is clear that Descartes and Peirce have different concepts of belief. However, I feel that Peirce is more concerned with reality. I also feel that Descartes has to prove that his thoughts on belief are clear and meaningful to others while he continues to doubt himself. On the other hand, Peirce seems to let his thoughts speak alone. Moreover, Peirce also explains that he is determined to find out how does one come to find that something is true whereas Descartes is in the stage where he needs to find a ‘foundation’ and get rid of doubt as I mentioned before. In reference to Descartes hyperbolic doubt, personally, I think that Descartes focus is for one to automatically doubt everything and eventually notice that there are ideas and assumptions to face. I am uncertain of whether he wants people to doubt everything even when we are thinking of ideas but I do know that he sends a very confusing message especially compared to Peirce’s thoughts. I question Descartes theory of belief and doubt because how can he have a thought or theory about belief if cant make up his own mind about whether or not God exists? Why would the majority who believes in a god believe anything that he proposes after that? I most certainly would not. I understand that one has to go through trial and error in order to succeed and prove one’s point. However, I think that Descartes points are very weak because he jumps back and forth with every proposal or argument that he presents. He also confuses himself as to whether or not he wants to believe in existing, God, belief, doubt, and truth. In conclusion, I think that Peirce’s argument was presented the best. All of his arguments were strong and made a lot of sense. It is clear that he ended his argument with the belief in empirical investigation. From the notes, Peirce states that he believes that if investigation could possibly continue to its ultimate resolution, opinion would settle on one explanation of things. That explanation is what is real and true. He also makes it very clear that one cannot come up with a conclusion nor have a thought without knowing the foundation. Throughout the entire paper I have criticized Descartes work. However, I do believe that one argument that he presented made a lot of sense to me, believe it or not. He explained that even though he is a thinking thing and he can exist without physically being, he believes that he was a mind and body joined together and that one affects the other. I agree with this statement because, as we mentioned in class, I believe that the mind and body have to work together in order for both of them to function properly.