Skepticism: A Reexamination of Reality When dealing with skepticism, it's imperative to understand why it is being discussed. Seeking the answer to a question that challenges the concept of reality is hardly an undertaking most people would want to attempt. It is far easier for the general population to blissfuly accept the reality that they experience as concrete. However, If our concept of knowledge is bound to what is accessible within our own minds, experiences that we have like taking psychedelics and vividly dreaming only show that the true concept of possessing knowledge is impossible. After all, dreams regularly fool us into believing we are truly experiencing an event; so how do we know there is any difference in what we are experiencing now? In the following paragraphs I will be explaining Descartes reasoning for skepticism, and my subsequent view of why it is important to be a skeptic. At some point in our lives, we all have believed with certainty, something that is a fallacy. However, for us to know that we have believed in a fallacy, we must be certain that our current assertions are correct. This notion is exactly what Rene Descartes started his first meditation on, reflecting on past falsehoods he realizes he must forget everything he knows, and start with a fresh plate. His first realization is that the easiest way to find doubt in his beliefs is not to methodically go through and pick out individual problems with each belief, but instead it is wiser to try and shake loose the foundations of those beliefs so that the whole structure of knowledge will come crumbling down. He then realizes that he must search for at least one indubitable truth, that is one truth that all of beliefs can be based on. The first insight he makes is that all of our knowledge up to this point has been fabricated by our senses in one way or another. However, as everyone has experienced at some point, the sense can deceive and be deceived. A common example can be how extreme cold and heat can produce a very similar sensation, but Descartes example was the sensory experience us humans have when we are dreaming. So if humans can believe that dreams are real while they are experiencing them, what then separates our dream reality from the one we call our “true” reality? Descartes contends that we cannot even know if our bodies are figments of our sensory experience or if they actually exist outside of our senses. The natural conclusion he draws is that all forms of science that study the “composite” things have inherent doubt in them because they rely on information from the senses. This leaves disciplines such as geometry and arithmetic that descartes thinks cannot reasonably be doubted. This leads him to question whether his notion of God which he believes is inherently good would deceive him, he assumes the latter is correct so he imagines a powerful demon who's goal is to deceive him. To counter this demon he decides to consider himself as separate from his eyes, hands, flesh, or senses to guard against believing in the deception. Living life like this constantly is a tough job, and if one were to get lazy it would lead them back into the pleasant illusion of life. Descartes search for one indubitable truth continues until he makes the revelation that to be deceived means that one must exist. This undeniable truth has come to resonate through the ages and still is a cornerstone for many modern philosphers. When I read Descartes reasons for doubting I felt very conflicted in my views. I firmly agree with him that every notion that we have that is based off of our senses is absolutely dubitable. The reason for this is because our only notion of those beliefs are based on information that must pass through the “filters” or senses of the human body/mind. Descartes then asserts that we have no reason to doubt mathematics because it is true regardless of our senses, however I personally find this to be extremely hypocritical for him to say. It is impossible to say that the notion of mathematics or even numbers as a whole is separated from the sensory experience of humans. The only way humans conceptualized things such as numbers or geometry was to help portray what they saw and felt in the world. Imagine being blind since birth and trying to have someone explain to you the difference between a diamond and square, as the difference is a matter of perspective, it would be hard to conceptualize shapes the way we do without sight. All of that is to say that if Descartes really holds the notion that we cannot believe what our senses tell us as a true one, then he must relinquish all notions of reality including the “transparent” beliefs such as mathematics. A byproduct of this type of reasoning would eventually lead a person to radical skepticism, which is not necessarily such a bad thing. I would find it very hard to try and find one universal truth that we do not encounter with our senses, this is because as humans our only interaction with the external world comes through our senses. Due to the inherent dubitable nature of our senses, I must then strive to find something which we know but not due to our senses. The most concrete idea that I have been able to come up with is my reality theory. Assuming that Descartes or Bostrom is correct, we have ample reason to question our current view of reality; However even if the reality we experience is not the “true” nature of the external world the fact that there is a manifestation of any type of reality means that at there must be some type of indubitable reality that exists either beyond us or within us. In short, because we experience something, there must be something concrete to build our model of the world off of. After reading both meditations one and two I felt somewhat lost. I do share Descartes view that because our senses are dubitable, anything based on them must also come into question. Unfortunately as I said, for me that means that nothing humans have experienced can ever be proven beyond a doubt. Saying this and internalizing this are two very different things, I know that everything that I have experienced could be a mere fabrication, however this fabrication is all that I have and ever will experience. This means that while I have my internal dialogue telling me that the food I eat is a fabricated delusion, that knowledge doesn’t stop me from enjoying the sensory experience I have. As far as I know, no human has ever experienced anything beyond what we call reality, so even knowing that most of what we experience could be utterly false we still must reside in our version of reality. My day to day life will likely not change much, I will be continually examining the beliefs I hold to be true, but in order to function as a human I will have to make assumptions about the world I interact with. It would be hard for me to drive a car if I didn't at least partly believe that our understanding of physics hold true in this reality. This conundrum forces most people into accepting what they perceive as reality, because to live in the world today you have no choice. As I move forward in life I will be more conscious about holding firm beliefs in concepts that are firmly rooted sensory information, but that seems to be almost everything in the observable universe. The fact that we have distinguished the “observable” from the “unobservable” universe means that our species is routinely understanding the gap between what we can detect and what we cannot. However I envision it will be some time before we all recognize the pervasive dubitability we live in because everything we experience passes through our five senses. For someone to truly believe in something they often have firm assertions that they hold as absolutely and unequivocally true. However Socrates and Kant both warn us about believing in ideas without justifications for them. As Descartes accounts, at one point everyone has believed something that is false. So how can we then know that what we believe now is any more true then our old beliefs? It's not hard to look back at human history and see what we now think are ridiculous examples of “common knowledge”, probably the most widespread is the myth of the flat earth. It was widely believed until around the 16th century that the world was flat and that there was a point at which you could fall off the earth. We have since come to understand that the earth is an oblong spheroid, but who's to say that our empirical evidence is 100% accurate. We constantly change our understanding of many scientific fields such as nuerochemistry, which begs the question if we are really getting closer to understanding these phenomena. I think for the human race to keep evolving into the future and be successful, we need to constantly question our beliefs and the justification for them. After being exposed to the philosophical view of skepticism, I feel positive because in examining my beliefs I am actively changing them. As history has shown us, it in important to keep an open mind to all matters that have not been considered. In this way, skepticism acts as the socratic fly on the horses ass, meant to jeer us out of our complacency with our understanding of reality. Descartes set out on a quest to find one indubitable truth, the best he could conjure was the famous saying “I think therefor I am” (Descartes). This recognizable truth changed the way people viewed reality and still continues to hold immense meaning every time it is uttered. Socrates was an advocate for the reexamination of beliefs, especially challenging our notions on knowledge. After reading all of the ideas put forth by these philosophers I feel that my understanding of the true nature of reality has been fundamentally changed and brought into question. Leaving me in a lasting state of contemplation about the world that we perceive.