Hey, Daniel.

No worries. I'm happy to help. I've made some suggested corrections in the text below. (You know, come to think of it, if we're going to do this again in the future, it might be better to send me a .doc file and I can turn on "Track Changes".)

Here are some comments:

I love the Jenny-holds-a-burger example. One of my favourite things about writing philosophy is the opportunity to present absurd examples to prove complex concepts. I once used an example that started, "Suppose your favourite song is 'Hot Blooded' by Foreigner...". Anyway: while the example is nice and clear (and funny, particularly when Aristotle makes a cameo), it's not persuasive to me. In order for Jenny to have knowledge of her dream-state, she is required to dream lucidly (which is rare) and, even then, she doesn't seem to have knowledge until reflection after the fact, which is another time at which she cannot be sure she isn't dreaming, right?

Your example about replacing outdated scientific knowledge supports my criticism above, I think. If we had a coherent set of beliefs before Galileo and Einstein which were replaced when we discovered them to be false, who's to say that won't happen again once some other scientists debunk Galileo and Einstein (ie, Newton vs. string theory)? How do we KNOW what we believe now is TRUE? Similarly, how do I KNOW now that I am NOT dreaming, even if I 'wake up' and reflect back on my 'dream'?

In the end, I think you're messing around with Aristotle's laws of logic too much (the law of non-contradiction, to be exact). Then again, I was never one for conherentism.

Now, beyond the philosophical disagreement, this is a pretty nice essay. I don't think it's the best one you've put together (that I've seen), but it's pretty strong.

Also, what happened to calling me 'Will', huh?

Will.



Hey Mr. Dyer. Sorry for calling you out here so suddenly. This essay has to do with Descartes First Meditation, so it shouldn't be too complicated. I tried as hard as I could to format my essay to the research question, but I'm worried that the essay might still lack focus. As always I'd be more than glad to hear your opinions on the paper.

Research Question: Explain and assess Descartes' approach to establishing a ?rm body of knowledge at the outset of Meditation I. What is his approach? Do you think that this is the best approach? Why or why not?

Thesis: Descartes approach is valid. A coherentist viewpoint is superior, but not necessarily the best.







Living in a Dream World
Examining Descartes’ approach to knowledge from Meditation I

	Réné Descartes was a French philosopher and mathematician, and is widely considered to be the greatest thinker of the 17th century. His best known work is his Meditations on First Philosophy, written in the Dutch Republic in 1647. As a whole, Meditations outlines Descartes thoughts on the questions “What exists?” and “How do we know it does?” The process begins at Meditation I as Descartes aims to establish what is false before moving on to establish what is true. Specifically, he questions his senses, the foundations of his beliefs. Dreams, he concludes, are the greatest source of deception the senses bring, as he can be completely convinced of the reality of a situation until realizing that he was asleep. After some further deduction, he resolves to see the world through the eyes of a skeptic; he cannot trust his senses, should a deceiver be tricking him about everything he thinks is true .

	In summary, Descartes approach to establishing a firm body of knowledge at the outset of Meditation I is to assume everything one thinks one knows is false. The starting point for Descartes’ theory is rock bottom as seen in Meditation II where he must deductively prove the existence of the mind. This paper will argue that it is not necessary to go to such lengths to establish a body of knowledge free from doubt. A much simpler, yet equally rigorous, approach is the application of the coherentist theory of knowledge and proof by contradiction. This way of establishing knowledge is a better approach than Descartes’. This shall be shown by first explaining the approach to be taken, then presenting why it is superior to Descartes’ through the dream example and others, before finally considering and responding to objections. Note that this paper does not claim that Descartes’ theory is entirely false: only that a coherentist view is possible and is superior to Descartes’. In order to focus the argument, only Meditation I and a brief portion of Meditation II will be considered.

(The following paragraph feels a bit choppy... flow issues).
	The coherentist view of knowledge is that any proposition can only be known if it is a part of a coherent, logical set. The starting point for this coherentist approach will be the same as Descartes’. The existence of the mind, as Descartes discusses in Meditation II, is an infallible truth. It is not necessary to prove the existence of the mind through the coherentist perspective. Beginning at the same point as Descartes provides a good point for comparing the two approaches later on. From here, the coherentist view diverges and assumes that everything one perceives is reality as it is. Only when the senses are called into question should their accuracy be considered. In this case, proof by contradiction can be applied. In mathematics, statements can be proved by this method if assuming the converse of the statement contradicts some other known truth. Assuming that a given sense is in error will lead to a contradiction within the coherentist body of knowledge. In summary, this approach has three axioms:

1)	The mind is sure to exist.
2)	The senses are perfect; what is real is what we perceive
3)	If the infallibility of the senses is challenged, proof by contradiction will discard these complaints.

Descartes himself admits that it is very difficult to avoid assuming the reality of the world around him, so it is already clear how this approach is superior: one must no longer actively work to remind oneself that they are being deceived at all times. In general, the coherentist approach is an easier one. Rather than an uphill battle, where reality must be built brick by brick, one has existence already prepared around them, and must only prove something when directly challenged. For instance, suppose Jenny is holding a hamburger. Descartes, in order to prove that Jenny knows she is holding the hamburger, would have her start with assuming reality around her is a grand deception and she must prove that the material world at all is real. This (which? You've muddled the pronouns) approach allows Jenny the knowledge of her lunch without this difficult process. However, there is always the possibility Jenny is dreaming, and she is not holding a hamburger at all. This is where the contradiction arises. If Jenny were not holding a hamburger at this instant, it would contradict all the stimuli she is receiving: from her eyes seeing the food, her hands touching it, her nose smelling it. Therefore, Jenny cannot be dreaming and her senses are not deceived. This is much easier than Descartes’ ‘construction’ of reality.

	However, Jenny might actually be dreaming. Her dream sense act perfectly with regards to the burger, yet she is entirely unaware that she is currently unconscious on her best friend’s couch. In this case one must realize that dreams are the mind’s imperfect representations of reality. Lucid dreamers are those who have trained themselves to notice oddities in their dreams and take control of the situation. Such oddities inevitably arise in any dream and are usually only noticed after one awakes. At the onset of Meditation I, Descartes states that one can never be sure if one is dreaming or not, while the coherentist theory is very clear on this matter. Suppose that while Jenny is holding her hamburger, Aristotle walks up to her and slaps it out of her hands. This seemingly irredeemable contradiction can nonetheless fit into the following coherent set:

1)	Aristotle could not have slapped that hamburger out of Jenny’s hand.
2)	Unless she was dreaming.

(Do you need more propositions here? Maybe this:

1) Aristotle is dead.
2) Dead people cannot slap hamburgers.
3) Aristotle slapped that hamburger out of Jenny's hand.
4) Jenny is dreaming.)

Whether or not Jenny notices this during her dream is up to her mental aptitude, but the fact that the possibility of discerning dreams from reality exists is an advantage the coherentist approach has that Descartes had missed out on in Meditation I.

	Of course, this theory is not without fail. As many detractors from coherentist theory have brought up, one can have a coherent set of beliefs about the world which is entirely false, justifying any contradiction with other contradicting evidence. However, such a challenge can be countered by arguing that any false coherent set of ideals is based on a false premise, and so is invalid. Before Galileo, many people had entirely coherent sets of belief about the earth and cosmos; this was all based on the false geocentric model of space. Likewise, once Einstein opened his theories on special relativity, coherent sets of knowledge of physics were cast out and replaced. If any new information on the nature of dreams or reality is brought to light, the coherent set can always be modified. Descartes’ approach is unchanging by contrast, and while this brings a sense of stability with it, it carries stubbornness as well.

	Another common objection would be to argue that it is possible to hold two mutually exclusive sets of coherent ideas that contradict each other: arguments for or against the existence of God are common examples. Descartes’ approach on the other hand does not depend on such issues and will always hold true. In this case the coherentist view could be seen as a sort of logical ‘OR’: both sets of ideas are each valid, but since there is only one coherent truth, only one of those corresponds to reality. The malleability of coherentism is flexible in this way by allowing multiple viewpoints on an issue while maintaining one unassailable path of truth, flexibility which Descartes lacks.

	In the seventeenth century, Réne Descartes argued a very convincing and mathematically rigorous approach to establishing a firm body of knowledge: if one digs oneself into a hole, one has nowhere to go but up. Assuming everything is deception gives a philosopher a very clear path to seeking the truth. While it is undoubtedly a valid approach, it is not the best. Taking Descartes’ existence of the mind as an axiom, it is much simpler to assume that reality is as it is perceived, only questioning it when it deserves to be contested. The coherentist approach allows one to assume these truths, which can be proven by contradiction if necessary. Unlike Descartes’, coherentism is flexible and allows one to recognize contradictions in dreams through coherent sets. It lends itself well to modernization as well as open-mindedness, accepting plausible explanations while maintaining that only one is truth. Descartes’ theory provides none of these. Although it will always hold true through its one path, coherentism provides the same truth through multiple angles. By accepting a coherentist viewpoint, living in a dream world is impossibility.