Essay --

Rachel Reed PHIL 389 Saint-Croix 10 February 2014 Question #7: Descartes’ Foundationalism In this paper I will describe the foundationalist structure of Descartes’ arguments in his work Meditations on First Philosophy. Foundationalism is the view that there are some beliefs are epistemologically basic and can be known without knowing anything else is true (Loeb, Lecture 1-14). For example, philosophers such as Descartes would acknowledge that geometric truths, such as 2 + 2 = 4, are so fundamental that they don’t need to be proven through argumentation. Thus, these truths can provide the basic foundation for further arguments. In my paper, I will show that two foundational claims of Descartes are first, the existence of the mind, and second, the existence of God. From these claims Descartes derives many others, including the argument for material objects and souls. As I lay out Descartes’ case, I will examine the philosophical soundness and validity of his foundationalist account, as well as its merits and potential weaknesses. In the end, I will conc lude that Descartes’ foundationalism, while alluring in its simplicity, does not survive deeper investigation. Descartes’ first foundational argument asserts that one can have knowledge of one’s own existence. The claim is essential to many arguments that follow because it survives his â€Å"Deceiver Hypothesis.† This hypothesis states that â€Å"there may be a powerful deceiver of supreme power who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me† (Med III, p. 17). This demonstrates that we cannot know, or be sure of, anything based on sensory experience alone. However, Descartes supports the idea that some things can be known entirely outside of sensory experience; through the use of logic and re... ...undational premises, such as the existence of God and the mind, do not provide indisputable groundwork for Descartes’ argument. First begging the question to prove the existence of the mind via dualism, and then conflating logic with cultural and personal ideals, these two tenets cannot stand on their own. In the case of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, foundationalism does not endure close scrutiny. Grade: B- General comments: Your paper doesn't really address the prompt. It does not discuss arguments that might be offered in favor of Foundationalism or discuss how effective such arguments might be, nor does it address the question of what arguments Descartes does offer. There's also little in the way of focused discussion of what you take to be the problem with the position. It seems like you started on a different prompt and switched part-way through.