Descartes Argument For Skepticism

In this essay I shall argue that Descartes’ argument for scepticism, (Cartesian doubt) conveyed in his First Meditation through three stages of doubt, is the most compelling, and evaluate the reasons for this being so.
• Written as a means for us to better understand what we know, not necessarily as a way for Descartes to discuss his own views on why we should be skeptical about everything, however the criticisms the Meditations produced can also be contested. To this extent, Descartes’ argument is most compelling as – despite the obvious criticisms – there are clearly still some elements which remain ambiguous or open to further discussion.
In essence, within his first meditation concerning doubt, Descartes argues that we can be skeptical of a number of things, as our ideas of knowledge and existence itself could potentially be brought into question. He suggests that we have no way of knowing whether all we believe to be true, or all our experiences, are is actually false through outlining three stages of doubt: we cannot completely trust our senses, all we know is merely part of a dream, or that we could all simply be under the ruling of an
It would appear that person A would not be able to doubt they were asleep (as they would if Descartes’ assumptions were true), as one could argue that if A was asleep, A would be unconscious. In turn, this would mean that A would be unable to question whether they were actually awake or within a dream-world, as they would not be able to think clearly while in such a state of deep sleep. Malcolm remarks “Evidence that he was sound asleep would be evidence [that he was] not in any state of consciousness.” (1956, 33), which can be seen to disprove Descartes’ dream theory as it is often acknowledged that we have to be conscious in order to develop clear thoughts or