Descartes Vs. Pascal Essay -- essays research papers

Descartes vs. Pascal   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  For centuries, human beings have been debating over the validity of the use of reason. This is a very, very difficult subject to discuss, as one is forced to study something which is at that moment being used in their study. Two classic thinkers who contrasted on their view of reason were Descartes and Pascal. Though both saw reason as the primary source of knowledge, they disagreed over the competence of human reason. Descartes, the skeptic, said that we could use reason to find certain truth if we used it correctly, while Pascal said that we can't know certain truth, but reason is the best source of knowledge that we have. Descartes:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Reason is the tool by which we know everything that we know. But most people make the mistake of basing their reasoning on assumptions which are not known with 100% certainty. As I've said, â€Å"I am greatly astonished when I consider [the great feebleness of mind] and its proneness to fall [insensibly] into error† (K&B, p. 409). But it is possible to avoid falling into error if we use the valuable tool of reason correctly. In order to do this and find certainty, we must find something that we cannot doubt. This is impossible, as we can logically doubt anything. A certain truth must be something that is not logically possible to be false.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  We must doubt, as that is the only way to find certain truth. It is the only way to wipe the slate clean of all of the uncertain assumptions which are believed and taught in the universities today. Just as mathematics will lead to uncertain assumptions if it is not built on certain truths, so will all use of reason lead to uncertain assumptions if it is not built on certain truths. There is a way to use doubt, though, to find certainty. If 100% certainty equals 0% doubt and we are certain that we can doubt everything, then we can use doubt as our certainty. We cannot doubt that we are doubting.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  With our one certainty, we can now methodically use reason to find more certainties. For example, we can use the certainty â€Å"I am doubting† to find out that â€Å"I exist.† If I am doubting, than there must be an â€Å"I† who is doubting, which means that I must be. Like I've often said, â€Å"I think, therefore I am.† We can continue building on our certainties using rationa... ...e knowledge. Watson:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I agree with Pascal on his view of the capabilities of reason. We are feeble, misled creatures in the midst of a reality which we cannot know. Descartes was correct in his attempt to use mathematical logic to get rid of uncertain assumptions and find truth, but he needs to realize that most truth is beyond our reach. We, as thinking humans, do have the remarkable ability to study ourselves. Yet we have limitations in this study and cannot expect to be able to get a complete grasp of ourselves. Pascal was right on when he said that there are no complete skeptics. There are many things which we must accept, using reason, that we cannot prove with certainty.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I don't lean quite as far in Pascal's direction on his view of intuitionism. I believe that there is intuitive knowledge which we know with our heart. But this knowledge is only believed correctly when it is rationally processed. As with almost everything, we must find a balance between the use of reason and intuition. We err on the side of believing unreasonably if we use too much intuition, we become too skeptical if we ignore intuitive knowledge.