After thorough meditation, Descartes is only left to believe that there is existence of an ‘I’, which is a thing that thinks. This means that the ‘I’ might lack a body and soul but only with thoughts. This contradicts the major argument by Bertrand Russell, “For if we cannot be sure of the independent existence of objects, we cannot be sure of the independent existence of other people’s bodies, and …… minds, …… we have no grounds for believing in their minds except …. from observing their bodies” (Russell). This counters the argument by Descartes that he exists as a thinking thing implying that he has a mind but not body. Since without a body he would not see the existence of other beings, it might mean that he is alone in the desert, which is impossible. …show more content…
This is explained using a simple example of the existence of a table, which for Descartes is something he should doubt because he does not have certainty of its existence. If seeing a table is assumed to be based on sense-data, it would mean that the table cloth used to cover it should be suspended on air and by a miracle leaving enough space that was initially thought to be covered by the table. This means that for the cloth to exist, a table should exist as well. However, Descartes can refute this claim by Russell to be based on sense-data and dreams. Nevertheless, the problem would be explaining how each person who sees the table and the cloth can only be assumed to be dreaming. It would also be required that Descartes explains how each person seeing the two objects gives them the names table and cloth. It is to imply that the two exist otherwise people would not have the same dreams at the same time and name the objects using the same