Relative Truth
“Cogito, ergo sum”
René Descartes, the famous 17-century philosopher and father of the postulate “I think, therefore I am [exist]” authored “Meditations on First Philosophy” where he discards all belief that is not absolutely certain. In the work, he attempts to arrive at a fundamental set of principles that one can know as true without any doubt. To achieve this, he employs a method called methodological skepticism: he doubts any idea that can be doubted.
Similar to what Chuang Tzu writes after dreaming that he is a butterfly, as an example Descartes observes that when he is dreaming that one’s senses seem real, but they do not actually exist. Accordingly, he questions if one can rely on the data of the senses as necessarily true.
Descartes proposes the knowledge invalidating argument of the “evil-deceiver”. This being has the power to deceive one of all his or her perceptions and casts doubt on all he or she can know of the world and the properties it contains. Given this possibility he convinces himself that there is no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies and asks if he too does not exist. He suggests that if he convinced himself of something he certainly had to exist to do so. He continues that if there is a deceiver that constantly tries to deceive him, he must exist if he is to be deceived. Thus, consciousness implies existence.
“In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me … the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.”
Although this theorem accounts for the existence of a perceiver, it leaves a trail of questions towards what is being perceived. If I were to use Descartes method of reasoning and reduce my certainty of anything that can’t be doubted to the point where I can only accept one truth as absolute, that I exist, it follows that if I have to methodically reconstruct my reality it would be forged out of doubtful ideas. If I were to accept a doubtful idea it would imply that I hold a certain level of “faith” in that it is true. Therefore, what I choose to believe becomes a truth relative to me and I would thus reconstruct my reality as a system of integrated beliefs.
“Being is to becoming what truth is to belief” - Plato, from the Timaeus
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:52 pm
[…] In my previous post Relative Truth, I concluded that a large part of our relative reality could be based on truths that we chose to accept if we used René Descartes’ sceptical approach- could it be possible that our perceptions, thoughts and beliefs - measurements - of reality affect objective reality more than we are led to believe? […]
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:59 pm
[…] Affective neuroscience, the study of neural mechanisms of emotion, suggests that emotion makes up an essential part of human decision-making, including long-term planning. It also suggests that the famous distinction made by Descartes between reason and emotion is not as clear as it seems. Many would prefer to abolish emotion altogether as its addictiveness can be domineering, but I believe it is an integrated part of who we are. Almost every bit of our makeup is designed for its existence. What would the value of purpose be without it? How much would the meaning of life actually matter then? How saturated will our collective sanity become? Would we want to understand anything? It would be like blinding ourselves purposefully not to see life’s atrocities, but at the same time sacrifice any vision of its magnificence. […]
March 12th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
[…] Affective neuroscience, the study of neural mechanisms of emotion, suggests that emotion makes up an essential part of human decision-making, including long-term planning. It also suggests that the famous distinction made by Descartes between reason and emotion is not as clear as it seems. Many would prefer to abolish emotion altogether as its addictiveness can be domineering, but I believe it is an integrated part of who we are. Almost every bit of our makeup is designed for its existence. What would the value of purpose be without it? How much would the meaning of life actually matter then? How saturated will our collective sanity become? Would we want to understand anything? It would be like blinding ourselves purposefully not to see life’s atrocities, but at the same time sacrifice any vision of its magnificence. John Preston: “What’s the point of your existence?” Mary: “To feel. ‘Cause you’ve never done it, you can never know it. But it’s as vital as breath. And without it, without love, without anger, without sorrow, breath is just a clock… ticking.” - Equilibrium […]