Descarte and Pierce

Descartes and Peirce both believe in belief and doubt. However, Peirce argument and determination to find a solution to overcome doubt is much stronger than Descartes’. Peirce also makes it known that he is aware of belief in which Descartes does not. Their beliefs result from the notion of clear and distinct ideas. Peirce and Descartes are both rationalists who believe that there is an independent truth and they know it when they see it. The problem that exists is that Descartes and Peirce realize that their senses and ideas could lead to rejection and doubt. The difference between Peirce and Descartes argument is that Peirce argues that to understand the effects of something is to understand what it is. Peirce uses the example of objects which I think is very clever. From the notes it is stated, “Peirce asks if a hard thing is always hard or only hard when it comes in contact with an object…” Even though Peirce was confused as to what the answer or explanation was, he gave a good justification and explained that one has to understand the effects of things. Descartes believes in the method of hyperbolic doubt which expresses the doubt of any belief that he finds reason to do so. The reason why Descartes believes in the method of hyperbolic doubt is because his senses seemed to have failed him in the past. Therefore, he is not sure if he can trust his senses. Unlike Peirce, Descartes was always skeptical of what he was trying to find. However, his goal was to get rid of the beliefs that caused him to be so doubtful.
Peirce has four methods that he tested to lead to belief over doubt. He uses these methods through the concept of inquiry which is to settle doubt. The method of tenacity explains that one should chose to belief whatever they want no matter what the odds may be. The second method that Peirce explains is authority which is the process of believing what is told believe and having to stick to it. The method of rationality is the process of believing what