Descartes Vs. Pascal Essay -- essays research papers

Descartes vs. PascalFor centuries, human beings have been debating oer the validity of the uptake of reason. This is a very, very difficult subject to discuss, as one isforced to study something which is at that moment being utilise in their study.Two classic thinkers who contrasted on their view of reason were Descartes andPascal. though both saw reason as the primary source of k instanterledge, theydis obliged over the competence of human reason. Descartes, the skeptic, saidthat we could affair reason to find sure truth if we used it powerful, whilePascal said that we raiset know received truth, but reason is the best source ofknowledge that we have.DescartesReason is the appliance by which we know everything that we know. But mostpeople make the shift of basing their reasoning on assumptions which are notknown with 100% certainty. As Ive said, I am spaciously astonished when Iconsider the great feebleness of mind and its proneness to fall insensiblyinto error (K&B, p. 4 09). But it is possible to obviate falling into error if weuse the valuable tool of reason correctly. In order to do this and findcertainty, we must(prenominal) find something that we cannot interrogation. This is impossible, aswe can logically doubt anything. A certain truth must be something that is notlogically possible to be false.We must doubt, as that is the hardly way to find certain truth. It is theonly way to wipe the slate clean of all of the uncertain assumptions which arebelieved and taught in the universities today. Just as mathematics will baksheesh touncertain assumptions if it is not built on certain truths, so will all use ofreason 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% certaintyequals 0% doubt and we are certain that we can doubt everything, then we can usedoubt as our certainty. We cannot doubt that we are doubting.With our one certainty, we can now methodically use reason to find morecertainties. For example, we can use the certainty I am doubting to find outthat I exist. If I am doubting, than in that respect must be an I who is doubting,which room that I must be. Like Ive often said, I think, therefore I am.We can continue building on our certainties using rationa... ...e knowledge.WatsonI agree with Pascal on his view of the capabilities of reason. We arefeeble, 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 ofuncertain assumptions and find truth, but he needs to realize that most truth isbeyond our reach. We, as thinking humans, do have the remarkable ability tostudy ourselves. Yet we have limitations in this study and cannot expect to beable to get a distinguish grasp of ourselves. Pascal was right on when he saidthat there are no complete skeptics. There are many things which we must accept,using reason, that we cannot prove with certainty.I dont lean quite as farthest in Pascals direction on his view ofintuitionism. I believe that there is intuitive knowledge which we know withour heart. But this knowledge is only believed correctly when it is rationallyprocessed. As with almost everything, we must find a proportionality between the use ofreason and intuition. We err on the side of accept unreasonably if we usetoo much intuition, we become too incredulous if we ignore intuitive knowledge.