Reference no: EM132499178

Skepticism

Question 1: At college, Descartes was taught a philosophy called "scholasticism," the dominant philosophy of late-medieval Europe. Describe some key theses of scholastic philosophy (like geocentrism) that Descartes rejected.

Question 2: Because he rejects scholasticism, Descartes decides to tear down his entire worldview and start over with fresh foundations. Descartes therefore sets his standard for belief very high. How high? - what does Descartes require of knowledge beyond justification and truth (starts with a "C")? How does Descartes decide whether or not he will keep believing something he previously believed or discard it (starts with a "D")?

Question 3: Explain what it means to be certain of a belief, using the concept of "sentence competitors." Use an example of something most people think they know that they can't actually know because they can't rule out all of that belief's competitors.

Question 4: Describe the reasons found in Descartes's first meditation that lead to the skeptical conclusion that we can't know that we inhabit a shared physical, 3-D world. Describe the idea of the malicious demon that is central to the skeptical argument. How does it supposedly demolish any hope of knowing anything about the world around us? Explain why this outlandish scenario need not actually be true, nor need we believe that it is true, for it to have this effect. (If you'd like you can compare the evil demon to a brain in a vat or The Matrix).

Question 5: Whereas Descartes's argument leads to the conclusion that our evidence is never good enough to know that an external world exists outside our mind, David Hume's argument leads to the conclusion that, even if we know the world exists, reason and observation can never tell us how the world works. This is not because we are just too dumb, it's because there's no way to justify our beliefs in the laws of nature.

Question 6: Explain what it means that laws of nature, if knowable, are knowable a posteriori. Since the laws of nature are not themselves directly observable, how is our purported knowledge of them based on observation?

Question 7: Explain why Hume thinks we can't justify our belief in the laws of nature. What assumption does our belief in the lawfulness of nature depend on that, according to Hume, cannot be justified a priori, by valid deduction, by direct observation, or by induction? Why can't any of these methods justify the assumption?

Question 8: Describe what you've concluded about the possibility of a posteriori knowledge of the world, in light of Descartes and Hume's arguments. Do you believe we can know anything about the world outside our own mind? If so, which of their premises do you reject, and why? If you accept their skeptical conclusion, do you believe that you have taken this class? Does your acceptance of skepticism entail that every belief is just as good as any other belief, and you might as well believe whatever you want regardless of your evidence? Why or why not?