He then used his idea of G-d to explain and justify his existence
and everything else he wants to prove as “clearly and distinctly” in his
argument. If Descartes were to have rejected the ideas of G-d and religion, he
would have had a much harder time proving his own existence and the existence of
elements which he believed to be true. Had this not been the case, I see no way
in which Descartes could have come to feel that he had been able to provide such
a secure proof of G-d and his own existence. At times, Descartes is
unnecessarily critical of many ideas. Descartes clearly states that he perceives
it to be quite necessary to question everything in the world around him, and
that we should never believe anything we learn from our senses. In his
Discourse, Descartes states “I learned not to believe anything to firmly of
which I had been persuaded only by example and customs: and thus I little by
little freed myself of many errors that can darken our natural light and render
us less able to listen to reason. (pg. 15, part 1).” In sternly following his
philosophies, Descartes must have missed out on many wonderful things in his
lifetime. True as it may be, that our senses can sometimes deceive us, those
deceptions can be beautiful and powerful things. The feelings we get when
looking at a beautiful sunset, or the colours of the leaves changing in the fall
are no less important or meaningful to us just because they may not be
completely accurate portrayals of reality. I think they are our reality. If at
every instance of life we questioned reality and could not just relax and take
in the moment, life may not be worth living because happiness would always be
questioned. I happen to feel that many of life’s greatest pleasures are in those
things that we can perceive only through our senses. Love and religion are
perfect examples of things we appreciate by blind faith and trust without the
use of reason. To go through life without knowing and experiencing things such
as these, would simply be a shame. One would be missing out on a number of
worthwhile experiences if they were to question and doubt everything to the
point where they could no longer appreciate life’s simple pleasures. I would
like to think that perhaps there are more important things in life than
questioning and denouncing everything that one has been told, simply because it
may not be based on the most secure knowledge possible. I suggest that Descartes
should have substituted “I feel, therefore I am” for his famous “I think,
therefore I am”.
Conceivably our senses are not the most secure basis for
knowledge, but they provide us with many wonderful sensations that I personally
would not be prepared to give up, simply for the knowledge that I really exist.
Possibly not every idea needs to be examined, and subsequently accepted or
rejected. Conceivably there is such a thing as “gut reaction”. What is true for
one person is not necessarily true for another. If refusing to question and call
into doubt everything that one knows and holds to be important equals remaining
ignorant, then I would prefer to be ignorant. I would elect to continue to
experience feelings brought upon me by things which I have observed through the
use of my senses and instinct, than to appreciate only those few things which
can be proved to be absolutely true. A life of obsessional questioning of every
single thing imaginable would be incredibly tedious and would wipe out the
wonder of enjoyment of invisible joys and gifts of nature. Descartes must have
been a very one-dimensional human being and one has to pity him for his lack of
ability to enjoy the world around him. On the surface, he appears to be very
confident that his argument bears validity, but my personal impression is that
he was actually very insecure after all. This proves to me that his theories and
the manor in which he proves his theories not to be valid and concrete in any
definite
Words: 1453
