home
archive · forum   
themes literature agenda archive anthology calendar links profile


english  What can be called into doubt

Hello. I've been trying to analyze Descartes' "First Meditation". I cant come up with any counterclaims to his arguments. Please help me. I really need some help ASAP.

So Descartes is arguing that a particular view of how we
acquire knowledge is wrong. This view (sometimes called "Empiricism")
is the view, that all that we know is based on sense-experience (the
testimony of our senses). According to Descartes, empiricism must be
wrong because we are justified in doubting whatever we believe based on
our senses. Why? Because we often make mistakes about such beliefs
based on the senses. We find out later that what we believed was wrong.
(Descartes gives several example of how our senses lead us into error)
But how can we know anything we are justified in doubting? We cannot.
So, since we can justifiably doubt whatever we think we know, when what
we think we know is based on sense-evidence, we cannot know what we
think we know when what we think we know is based on sense-evidence.
Descartes’ first meditation, his main objective is to present three
skeptical arguments to bring doubt upon what he considers his basic
beliefs. Descartes believes this to be an intricate part of his complete
epistemological argument.
Descartes begins by saying that he wants to abandon all notions that can
be called into doubt. He is intending to find other statements that can not
be doubted and which are true under any circumstances. He wants these
statements to serve as a basis for our knowledge, which therefore will
also be true for ever.
In his work, Descartes states that he doesn’t need to examine all the
variety of opinions but the foundations on which they are bases. He says
that if he will be able to prove that the foundations of these opinions are
wrong, therefore the opinions themselves will be wrong as well.
He also states that there are no particular signs which would determine
whether we are asleep or awake. That lead him to a conclusion that all
perceptions, senses, etc, shall be doubted because we can not determine
whether we are dreaming or not and therefore say what is real and what
isn’t.
Furthermore, all perceptions such as mathematics, etc. must also be
doubted, motivated by the possible existence of an evil God
influencing these in a way to differ from what is true and real.
Descartes’ final conclusion in the first meditation is that all perceptions
must be doubted and that in turn meant all knowledge must be doubted
due to rationalistic principle (Descartes assumed that knowledge may be
built up, step by step, from foundation which is true. This “true”
foundation would guarantee the eternal nature of the knowledge. This
implies that there is some sort of absolute reality). He also notes
that even if he can’t know anything for sure, he can at least avoid false
knowledge. Descartes also makes the assumption that reason and logic,
which he uses, are valid and sufficient tools for attaining knowledge and
asserting truth or falsity. However, one shall not confuse common sense
with logic for this reason.

What would be a counterclaim to his statements? Please help!