David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Literature 24 (1):67-82 (2000)
In his Meditations Descartes tells us that he initially thought error might be avoided if he withheld assent “no less carefully from what is not plainly certain and indubitable than from what is obviously false.” For example, he thinks it plainly certain and indubitable that he is “sitting by the fire, wearing a winter cloak, holding this paper in my hands, and so on.” And yet even what is “plainly certain and indubitable” can be doubted. “I will suppose, then, not that there is a supremely good God, the source of truth; but that there is an evil spirit, who is supremely powerful and intelligent, and does his utmost to deceive me.” Such a deceiver can spin illusions that appear indubitably real and true—of hands, fire, cloak, paper—and not only when there are none present in any particular case but even where there are none at all in any case. “I will suppose that sky, air, earth, colors, shapes, sounds and all external objects are mere delusive dreams, by means of which he lays snares for my credulity.”2 The deceiver hypothesis is the most difficult skeptical doubt Descartes must surmount in the remaining Meditations. I say the deceiver hypothesis, and for Descartes the deceiver is a mere possibility, raised so as to motivate the reconstitution of knowledge that follows. That there might be a powerful deceiver is itself a threat to knowledge for Descartes. Indeed even the possibility of an evil deceiver is so powerful a threat that Descartes must do nothing less than prove God’s existence to reestablish certainty. It is only at the end of his Meditations that Descartes can say, as if looking back on a hysterical moment, that the evil deceiver idea was “exaggerated” and “ridiculous.”3..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Richard Allen (2006). Hitchcock and Cavell. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64 (1):43–53.
Similar books and articles
Brian P. McLaughlin (2000). Self-Knowledge, Externalism, and Skepticism,I. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 74 (1):93–118.
Ewing Y. Chinn (1983). A Journey Around the Cartesian Circle. Philosophy Research Archives 9:279-292.
Kevin Lynch (2012). On the “Tension” Inherent in Self-Deception. Philosophical Psychology 25 (3):433-450.
Andrea Christofidou (2001). Descartes' Dualism: Correcting Some Misconceptions. Journal of the History of Philosophy 39 (2):215-238.
John J. Conley (1994). The Silence of Descartes. Philosophy and Theology 8 (3):199-212.
David Scott (2009). Descartes, Madness and Method. International Philosophical Quarterly 49 (2):153-171.
Michael W. Hickson (2011). The Moral Certainty of Immortality in Descartes. History of Philosophy Quarterly 28 (3):227-247.
Added to index2009-02-26
Total downloads21 ( #169,751 of 1,789,858 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #263,819 of 1,789,858 )
How can I increase my downloads?