For many people, even if they don't know very much about philosophy, they know the name Descartes. Those who know something about the subject would probably agree that Rene Descartes was one of the most influential thinkers, even to this day. In contrast to Descartes' way of thinking is Charles Peirce's philosophy. Although Peirce is less well known outside the philosophical realm, his thoughts have been influential in the formation of a philosophy called Pragmatism, as well as the development of American society. We are going to be examining their opposing views and their influence on our own thinking.

Rene Descartes was alive in the early part of the 17th century. His basic concern is overcoming doubt. How can we overcome doubt? Is there a method that we can use that is applicable in all citations? Descartes wants to be apodictic, which is absolutely certain, about his claims. In order to do this he must begin with a foundation. This foundation must be apodictic as well if the rest of his claims are to be considered true. Descartes also wants to use a method that is logical and the idea of knowledge as systematic.

In order to understand why Descartes makes the claims that he does we must first understand how he draws his conclusions. Critical to his whole theory is his need for a foundation. Since we all come from distinct backgrounds and have different inherent beliefs and judgments, it is difficult for us to come to an agreement on issues such as truth. In order to avoid this problem of who is right and why, Descartes tries come up with a method that can be used by anyone to demonstrate 'truth'. If we begin with principles that we all acknowledge as correct, we can use this method to come to an agreement about what is true. Descartes wants to make the process of acquiring knowledge into a formal procedure, so that it can not be disputed.

Descartes begins by claiming that we all have a certain amount of good sense. "Good sense is the most evenly distributed commodity in the world"(Descartes p.1) Using this 'good sense', that we all have, along with a method, we can arrive at a commonly shared truth. He also says that we all share a natural light or capacity of knowledge, which we use to reason and to 'know' things. The standard of knowledge is illustrated in mathematics, which he claims is the highest degree of knowledge. "I took especially great pleasure in mathematics because of its certainty and the evidence of its arguments... I was astonished that, because its foundations were so solid and firm, no one had built anything more notable upon them." (Descartes p.4)

Descartes believes the first and most logical principle of knowledge is philosophy. With this said, he wants to set up his apodictic foundation. He starts out by declaring that anything probable must be considered false, and only what is certain can be true. Since most of what we learn is just what other people tell us, we must reject it because it is not certain.

Rather than going out into the world to find knowledge, Descartes want us to go inside ourselves. It is only once we have denied all falsehoods resulting from the outside world that we can begin a new structure of logic based strictly on definite truths. In order for our foundation to be firm, we must find a point which is certain and this point is within ourselves. From this point our judgements must be based on reason or we'll need to back track until we are once again certain. For many people this may mean completely starting over and questioning everything.

This is what Descartes has decided to do: question everything. He starts by saying that any knowledge we have gained from others is not certain, since we ourselves did not acquire this knowledge first hand. He goes on to claim that even our senses may deceive us. Is their any way to be sure our senses are always accurate? Therefore: we can not fully trust them. If we can not trust our senses then what can we trust? Can we trust our thoughts? Well, we can't trust our thoughts that are based on 'knowledge' that we have learned, since we can not trust our senses or anything outside ourselves. What then can we trust? What then do we know?

Descartes answers the first question by saying that clear and distinct ideas are trust worthy. What makes these ideas so special that they can be trusted? Descartes argues that God gives us these clear and distinct ideas and since God can be trusted, then so can these thoughts. Therefore, God must exist for this to be true. Descartes believes God exists because he is perfect and if he were not perfect then he would not exist. In other words God would not be perfect if he didn't exist.

The second question is answered by Descartes in a very profound statement. By rejecting everything, we are in effect asking what is real and what makes us real and how do we know we are real. The answer is very simple: in order for us to be real we must exist and if we are to ask if we exist, we must exist. How could I ask this question if I did not exist? "I think, therefore I am- that assures me that I am uttering the truth, except that I see very clearly that, in order to think, one must exist"(Descartes p.18) This very famous phrase shows us Descartes' thought process and foundation for thinking.

After 200+ years and a bit of his own contemplation Charles Peirce had some interesting thoughts that are significantly different from those of Descartes. Peirce was interested in logic and what is meant by reality. In contrast to Cartesianism, Peirce felt that all we know is what is given in experience. "Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object" (Peirce p.48) This means that what we mean by a thing is what we get from it when we experience it. In other words, what I mean by the term 'wall' has to do with the experiences I have had with it.

This is very significant because it means that different things to different people depending on their experiences with those objects. Peirce wants us to understand that belief is the state of leaving doubt behind. Could we believe something if we had any doubt in it? We seek stable beliefs through inquiry, the source of inquiry lies in doubt and pushes us to overcome doubt, "the sole object of inquiry is the settlement of opinion"(Peirce p.67) Peirce goes on to claim that when you believe you already know. He wants us to make the distinction between believing something is true and knowing something is true.

Instead of creating a method, the way Descartes did, Peirce employs the scientific method. He makes inductions from what is already known and from this information he forms a hypothesis. Peirce is not searching for absolute theoretical truth, he has given up the idea of absolute truth. He understands knowledge as coming from experience. To know is to grasp independent reality through the senses or by experience. Peirce would like us to make the distinction between a principle that can't be doubted and one that isn't doubted. We are beginning to see how Peirce sees things differently that Descartes.

We can see how these tow thinkers are different. Descartes wants to distrust our experiences (because we can not be sure that they are true). Where are Peirce sees experience as the only available source of knowledge. Descartes states that we should trust 'clear and distinct ideas', but Peirce feels that Descartes does not define what makes an idea clear. Peirce also sees the questioning of everything and feels that it is irrelevant because it is not a practical or 'real' doubting. What Descartes is doing is theoretical doubting and Peirce sees this as unimportant, "the mere putting of a proposition into interrogative form does not stimulate the mind to a struggle after belief. There must be a real and living doubt, and without this, discussion is idle." (Peirce p. 68) Peirce is not interested theoretical doubts because they do not occur naturally.

These two philosophers have completely different concepts of truth and how to obtain knowledge. While Descartes is searching for a undoubtable foundation, Peirce is not even concerned with that type of justification for his thinking. Peirce wants his thoughts to make sense on their own, without having to be applicable in all cases. Peirce is concerned with what is practical, not the theoretical, because what is theoretical is not real to Peirce.

Descartes is looking for absolute certainty, but this concept is impossible to Peirce because there are only beliefs. We can never know absolutely what truth is, but we can believe something is true once we stop doubting it. It may be hard for a Descartes to respond to opposing views now that he is dead, we can still see how the two views are different and divergent. We should consider that it is much easier for Peirce to come up with a comparable theory after having over 200 years of people examining Descartes' thoughts and analyzing them. While this may be true, it does not mean either view is improbable. I feel much more comfortable with Peirce's ideas because they do not need a foundation to be successful. I have some problems with Descartes and his conception of a supreme being. For an atheist, Descartes' theories do not hold, they are based on the existence of God. It seems to me that a strong theory is one that has all its effectiveness in the open where it can be examined and questioned without the incorporation of religion.

The effectiveness of any theory is that it holds true in all circumstances. If the sun did not rise from the east and set in the west, then the theory that it did so would not be true and it would lose its competence. Descartes is asking us to believe that anything probable must be considered false, if the idea of God is not definite in one's mind (with no possible doubt) then his theory does not hold. For a theory to be universally accepted, it must be acceptable in all of its aspects. A true theory is prevalent in its face value.

Although Descartes wants us to believe and trust in the strength of his argument, I have a problem with much of it. I agree that in order to question my existence I must first exist, but before we even get this in depth I have some questions about his thinking. We can trust 'clear and distinct' ideas because God would not deceive us, but why would God not deceive us? Whether or not God is perfect is irrelevant. Even if God were perfect, why would that mean that he would not deceive us? How does it follow from 'God being perfect' to 'God not deceiving us'? They seem completely unrelated to me. Why would God deceive us in our senses, but not in our thoughts? Maybe God deceives us in our perceptions that are not clear and distinct. If this is Descartes foundation, then I do not feel it is strong enough to support the rest of his conclusions.

In our examination of these two different thinkers it has become apparent that their thoughts are contrasting in their very origination. While Descartes needs a firm foundation to build the rest of his thought as 'true', Peirce lets his thoughts stand on their own. Descartes wants absolute knowledge as well as truth and relies on his proof of the existence of God, where as Peirce is simply concerned with belief and how we come to believe something is true. Descartes' philosophy has been influential on many people and his thoughts have been pondered over for over 300 years which makes them easier to criticize. Peirce's ideas of the validity of independent thoughts or beliefs, as well as only considering real or practical concepts permeate American society even to this day.

Would you like to comment on this page?