Descartes Argument For Knowledge

In this paper, I will argue Descartes’ argument, that it is possible to gain knowledge, is flawed and incorrect. First, I will set out Descartes’ premise for believing knowledge is possible. Next, I will reintroduce his ideas in order to point out flaws and show the weakness of his position. Then, I will provide a counter to my assertions. Finally, I will give my reasons for supporting the notion that it is not possible to gain knowledge.
Descartes’ Argument Descartes’ argument for knowledge is based on skepticism; he doubts everything in order to find something unshakably true, concluding that the only thing we can know for sure is that “I exist”, that is, “I am a thinking thing” (Meditation 1). He believes I think, therefore I am. His premise of doubting involves asking if something is possible to be false, and if so treat it as such for the sake of argument. Descartes continues to address
He defines God as an infinite and perfect substance. We (humans) have the idea of God; however, because all I know is I exist, our ideas must have some origin, and thus, God could not have originated from somewhere within my mind. He concludes that God exists as a creator, having created us having the idea of God in us. Descartes, having established both God and I exist, continues to conclude that God can not be a deceiver. ---continue to conclude knowledge is possible
Flaws in Descartes’ Argument Within Descartes argument, there are flaws and weaknesses that make his conclusion untrue; Descartes’ take on free will and the senses, as well as points he may have left out, all attest to knowledge being unattainable. Descartes defines error as a lack of knowledge in us, not a pure fault. Because we