Skepticism and Descartes' Doubt

It is the purpose of epistemology to test the validity of man's spontaneous convictions and see whether they are justifiable before the bar of rational criticism. If they are vindicated after a thorough investigation of their ultimate grounds and causes, they become reflex and philosophic certainties and will rest upon a firm, scientific basis. If, however, a critical examination should show that these spontaneous convictions are blind assents of the mind or are the result of some compulsory internal mechanism of the human mind, their truth-value will either be disproved or will remain forever in doubt.

In approaching the problem, the method employed will be a matter of great importance. A wrong method may produce disastrous results, just as a march from a false starting point, persistently carried on, will take the traveler far away from his goal; not every route will lead to the desired destination.

We must never overlook the fact that, while investigating the mind and its faculties, we are using this very mind and its faculties as the instruments of our investigation. On the face of it, this seems an unwarrantable procedure. Since the validity of the mind and its faculties is at stake, how can their use in this investigation be legitimate? The answer is: the truth of our whole domain of knowledge being under examination, the only legitimate procedure available is to analyze our knowledge reflectively and watch the operations of our mind in the formation of its spontaneous convictions, so as to see whether they are based upon truly rational grounds; there is no other way possible.

The only alternative would be to approach the problem in the attitude of complete doubts. The initial state of mind would then be to doubt absolutely everything, including the capability of the mind and its faculties to attain to any and all true knowledge. This, of course, would mean to approach the problem of human knowledge with the method of universal skepticism. At first blush, this would seem to be the logical thing to do--doubt everything from the start and then work our way upward toward certitude and truth. But this method would be fatal in its very inception.

Sidebar One

The validity or truth-value of human knowledge is the crucial problem in modern Philosophy. It has agitated the minds of philosophers for more than three centuries and the effects of their discussions are felt in every department of science. Naturally so, since it lies in the very nature of Epistemology to question the capability of man's mind to contact reality and to know what things are in themselves, the validity of all knowledge, and consequently also of science, is at stake. The foundations of human knowledge are challenged, examined, and frequently attacked. An acquaintance with this problem and its possible solution will be, therefore, a matter of prime importance for every seeker of truth and for every student of Philosophy.

This blog is intended for those who have no previous acquaintance with the subject. In accordance with this purpose, we have endeavored to place the problem in its proper historical setting, showing its origin and development, without confusing the issue with a large amount of historical detail. For the same reason, the subject (Epistemology) is treated in a constructive manner, seeking a positive solution of the Epistemological problem rather than giving an extensive criticism and refutation of the individual opposing systems of thought.

The language, so far as consistent with the matter under discussion, is plain and simple, avoiding what Hugh S. Elliot styles "sesquipedalian verbiage." Much of our modern philosophical jargon is so well-nigh incomprehensible as to make the underlying ideas opaque unintelligibility is not necessarily depth. Obscurities, of course, remain because the nature of knowledge itself is obscure; no amount of words will ever be able to clarify completely the mystery of the mind.

Pages

Epistemology, Knowledge and the Truth