Ben Wolf

Wood PHI 215-01

12 October 2017

The Strongest Shape

One plus one is two. Two plus two is four. These are basic beliefs which are held by

people all over the world, regardless of language, culture, or upbringing. No matter how each

individual person's brain works, they perceive the same things, because those things exist in the

world, and are universal. However, to believe this is to fall prey to the fallacy ad populum; just

because many people believe it doesn't mean it's the truth. How do we know anything in the

world exists, really? How can we prove anything we know? Two great philosophers gave rise to

new schools of thought centuries ago attempting to answer these questions. Only one succeeded,

and in limited fashion. However, Descartes' attempt to prove foundationalism has a stronger

basis in reality and makes better sense than Locke's empiricist approach.

To truly be called "knowledge," any statement must meet three criteria: It must be a held

belief, must be true, and must be justified. The first two criteria are simple to fulfillthe grass is

green, the sky is blue; these things are true beliefs. However, justification is a point of much

contention in philosophy. Skeptics believe it is impossible to ever truly justify a statement,

because there are only three ways to go about this, and all of them are unsatisfactory. This is

called Agrippa's Trilemma.

The first method of insufficient proof in the Trilemma, called infinitism, requires

justification for each statement back into infinity, which is of course impossible. For each

question that can be answered, another may call into question the validity of that answer, i.e., the

"why" game. The second method is called coherentism, or circular reasoning, where a statement
justifies itself. In this case, the justification only has grounds if the statement is assumed already

to be true.

The third method is foundationalism. Foundationalism is similar to infinitism, except

that the "why" game at some point simply ends without further explanation. This method holds

the most promise for philosophers who do believe in true knowledge; if one statement which

does not require justification to be considered "knowledge" can be found, then all other

knowledge could be justified with that as its foundation.

Two schools of thought quickly arose (around two thousand years later) with the search

for what came to be known as "foundational knowledge." One, spearheaded by Ren Descartes,

believes that knowledge can be justified through reason alone, and certainty achieved simply by

utilizing inarguable logical truths. This is the school of rationalism, which believes in a priori

knowledge. The other, founded by John Locke, believes that our senses tell us everything we

may know about the world, and anything which cannot be perceived cannot be known. This is

the empiricist school, which argues for a posteriori knowledge.

In his quest for foundational knowledge, Descartes reduced skepticism ad absurdum by

calling everything into question which he could not consider true knowledge; that is, according

to Agrippa's Trilemma, everything. In his Meditations, Descartes says, "I will regard all

external things as nothing but the deceptive games of my dreams.... I will regard myself as

having no flesh, no blood, no senses, but as nevertheless falsely believing that I possess all

these things." In this way, he systematically rejects all math and science, the people around him,

the four walls of his home, and even God in favor of skepticism. However, there is one thing he

cannot reject, and that is his own thoughts; for even if nothing and no one exists in the reality

which he knows, someone (or something) is still experiencing that reality. Hence his famous
phrase, cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am.

Descartes' foundational knowledge has one flaw, thoughit cannot be applied to make

anything else in the world more true. If I want to prove the sky is blue, I cannot do that simply

from knowing that I exist; I still don't know that the sky exists, that my eyes can see, or even that

I have eyes or a body of any kind. However, he makes an undeniable point at the end of his

second meditation. He says, "I would speak no more foolishly were I to say: 'I will imagine so

that I might recognize more distinctly who I am,' than were I to say: 'Now I surely am awake,

and I see something true, but because I do not yet see it with sufficient evidence, I will take the

trouble of going back to sleep so that my dreams might show this to me more truly.'" This

means that whether or not the reality we know is false, we have no choice but to live in it. We

cannot extend ourselves outside of our reality nor prove the existence of anything beyond it, so it

is pointless to assume that we do not really exist. Because the fact of the matter is, we do, and

we are here.

Locke's foundational knowledge, on the other hand, is based entirely on empirical

evidence, or what can be seen and experienced in the world; he does not allow ideas to stand for

themselves. He separates all the qualities of things in the world into two categories. Primary

qualities are "utterly inseparable from the body," which "we may observe to produce simple

ideas in us." These include such things as solidity, figure, and motion. Locke believed these

qualities preceded human ideas of them, and as such remain unchanged no matter how we

perceive them. Secondary qualities are those which "are nothing in the objects themselves but

powers to produce various sensations in us." These are qualities which don't affect the object in

any way, but affect the person perceiving it, such as color, temperature and smell.

However, Cartesian doubt calls Locke's empiricism into question. Locke cannot prove
that the objects he perceives do in fact have any qualities at allhe cannot even know that he has

any senses to perceive them with. According to Agrippa's Trilemma, his knowledge is coherent;

as long as we assume the statements he makes are true, we can consider his conclusion "real"

knowledge, but there is no reason why we would.

Locke assumes the senses are infallible. He says, "when my eyes are shut, or windows

fast, I can at pleasure recall to my mind the ideas of light, or the sun, which former sensations

had lodged in my memory; so I can at pleasure lay by that idea, and take into my view that of the

smell of a rose, or taste of sugar." By his own example, though, babies and idiots cannot do this.

Also, if he had eaten an artichoke beforehand, he might drink a glass of water and simply

perceive the taste of sugar which wasn't there. If he stared at a pink dot for long enough, a white

wall to him might appear green. The senses can be tricked in any number of ways, and Descartes

recognizes this, which is why his own foundational knowledge rejects them completely.

A triangle is the strongest shape. Agrippa's Trilemma has weathered centuries of

philosophical deliberation and stood the test of time. To this day, it cannot be ignored when

attempting to prove the validity of a statement. Two schools of thought were formulated to foil

the Trilemma; one failed, and one succeeded but to no avail. Locke's empirical approach is

circular, and not only contradicts his own arguments against a priori knowledge, but serves only

to prove itself. Descartes' rationalism succeeded in proving one statement which is foundational,

but cannot be built upon. However, his argument against skepticism is undeniable. While

neither school of thought is infallible, few extremes are, and each brings to light valuable clues in

the search for true knowledge.