Paper 2:
Maya Nibbe
Dr. Schulte
Philosophy 101
7-19-2023
Epistemology Paper
When it comes to the study of knowledge (AKA Epistemology) and answering the question, “What is reality?”, there are two positions one can take: Empiricism or Rationalism. Empiricists, such as David Hume, believe that reality is based upon one’s own experiences in the world, which are dictated by natural laws, and therefore can’t be reasonably doubted (Fieser). While Rationalists, such as Rene Descartes, believe that reality is not just based upon one’s own experiences and/or natural laws, and therefore can be doubted (Skirry).
Personally, I lean closer towards Rationalism rather than Empiricism because human minds can be flawed, and therefore experience things that aren’t actually real. Sure, natural laws do exist and, in theory, can’t be flawed. However, like Descartes, I don’t think the human mind is bound by natural laws, and therefore can think and experience things that don’t actually exist.
Before I get ahead of myself, I think it’s important to point out that we can’t have knowledge of things that don’t exist. Sure, we can make up names and fun facts about dragons. But, since dragons don’t literally exist, we can’t actually have knowledge of dragons. After all, knowledge can’t simply be “made up”. Knowledge must have science and actual facts to back it up. While we can’t have knowledge of dragons, we can (and do) have knowledge of Komodo Dragons, as dragons are fantasy, but Komodo Dragons are real.
That said, what if someone swears they saw an actual dragon in real life? Well, like Descartes, I’d be inclined to doubt them. Why? Because, scientifically speaking, our minds can easily make things up about the world around us. Seeing/believing things that aren’t real is called Psychosis (National Institute of Mental Health). Since there’s yet to be any scientific proof of dragons actually existing, but there is lots of evidence to show that humans can experience Psychosis, if someone claims to have seen an actual dragon in real life, it would be much more reasonable to assume that they were either lying about the experience, or hallucinated the experience altogether, than it would be to fully accept that person’s experience as real.
However, we don’t have to accuse the person who swears they saw a dragon of being a liar or insane, to still show that their experience was flawed. In his Meditations on First Philosophy, specifically in Meditation II, Descartes writes, “…when looking from a window and saying I see men who pass in the street, I really do not see them, but infer that what I see is men, just as I say that I see wax. And yet what do I see from the window but hats and coats which may cover automatic machines? Yet I judge these to be men. And similarly solely by the faculty of judgment which rests in my mind, I comprehend that which I believed I saw with my eyes.” (Descartes).
In other words, Descartes is saying that it’s possible for someone to mistake a robot in a coat for a man in a coat, for the same reasons it’s reasonable to assume that a person who swears they saw a real dragon, but wasn’t lying or hallucinating, was merely mistaking a Komodo Dragon for a real dragon.
Yet, Hume would argue that there is no way to prove nor disprove that the person really saw a real dragon, since we weren’t the ones who witnessed it. We could come up with every rational explanation possible to show that the person who saw a dragon didn’t actually see a dragon, but Hume would still argue that the person’s experience of a dragon is just as real as one’s experience with a Komodo Dragon.
Why do I say that? Because Hume writes, “The intense view of these manifold contradictions and imperfections in human reason has so wrought upon me, and heated my brain, that I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another [Treatise, 1.4.7.8].” (Fieser).
Because of how radical Hume’s Empiricist position is, I can’t accept it as easily as I can accept Descartes’ Rationalism. I don’t have an issue with someone believing they saw a real dragon (AKA being an Empiricist). I just don’t believe real dragons exist for the reasons I stated above. If I saw what I perceived to be a real dragon, I’d question my sanity long before I started to believe that dragons (aside from Komodo Dragons and other lizards) really exist, because our senses and our minds can easily trick us into seeing and believing things that aren’t actually real.
Works Cited:
Skirry, Justin. “René Descartes (1596—1650).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 21 July 2023. https://iep.utm.edu/rene-descartes/.
Fieser, James. “David Hume (1711—1776).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 21 July 2023. https://iep.utm.edu/hume/.
National Institute of Mental Health. “Understanding Psychosis.” Accessed 21 July 2023. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/understanding-psychosis#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20one%20cause,bipolar%20disorder%2C%20or%20severe%20depression.
Rene Descartes. “Meditations on First Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 21 July 2023. file:///C:/Users/mayaj/Downloads/DescartesMeditations1.pdf.
