THE LIMITS OF KNOWLEDGE

An Analysis of Empirical Philosophy

Eliam C. Weinstock

1st Philosophy Honors

Mr. Swedlow

December 18, 2018

 The Limits of Knowledge

I. The Philosophy of Doubt

a. Meditation I

i. The Project

In Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, he begins by writing that for his entire life

he has been deceived, and everything that he thought was true was, in fact, a falsehood. He knows

that there are things that he used to believe are not true (e.g. Hanukkah Man); those were his

rational doubts. But he knows that there are still a lot of things that he is being deceived about.

However, he doesn’t know everything that he has been deceived about. So, he decides to destroy

all the base foundations of “a posteriori” knowledge (perception and thought) and begin to build

his own foundation of a priori knowledge through a process of geometric proofs 1. This foundation

will consist of innate truths (Descartes 136).

ii. The Reality of Dreams

Descartes acknowledges that all of his previous knowledge was mainly based on his

perception. However, Descartes infers that because our perceptions are susceptible to optical

illusions, like heat hazes on the road, we cannot trust on our senses to be fully reliable. At the same

time, Descartes also points out that even if our perception of an object (e.g., a table) is wrong, we

can infer that there is something physically there to perceive. Otherwise, what else would he

perceive if not something? Descartes argues that a madman could hallucinate things that are not

there. Such afflictions like schizophrenia cause a person to see things that don’t exist. But

Descartes rejects the notion that he is a madman. Instead, he argues that one way he could perceive

things that aren’t real would be if he were dreaming and did not know it (Descartes 137).

1 Arithmetic, according to Descartes, is one of the only innate truths to him at this moment. Because 4+2 will always equal 4, or
4*5 will always equal 20 etc., he can be certain that a+b will always equal c no matter the number. Furthermore, the geometric
proof is a surefire way of establishing what is true and false because in order to solve a proof, you must do so though the use of
logic and reason.

Weinstock 1
 The Limits of Knowledge

How often a dream has convinced me that I was there, sitting before the fire wearing
my dressing gown, when in fact I was undressed and between the covers of my bed
(Descartes 137)!

Descartes explains that often when he dreams, he experiences things that seem real, as

though he were awake. However, he contends that his senses are being deceived into thinking that

he is awake while he is, in fact, dreaming. Descartes concludes that because dreams can be as

realistic as the waking life, he has no method of distinguishing his experiences in the waking world

from his experiences in dreams (Descartes 137). Therefore, he cannot fully trust his perceptions

because the mere possibility of him dreaming at this moment, however likely or unlikely, calls his

perception into doubt. Thus, Descartes has destroyed his foundation of senses.

iii. Demons & Deception

Descartes knows that he could be dreaming, but he also reasons that “...the things I see in

sleep are like painted images, which must have been patterned after real things” (Descartes 137).

Even if Descartes is dreaming, the things that he experiences in his dreams must be copies of what

he has observed while awake; otherwise how could he possibly dream of something he has never

seen or experienced. On the other hand, there could be an all-good, all-powerful God that forces

Descartes to experience things that don’t exist outside of the God’s deception. Such a claim would

be impossible, however, because God is all-good, and therefore would not be capable of deception

due to its malicious nature. Alternatively, God could be an all-powerful, all-evil demon deceiver

whose soul mission is to deceive Descartes and manipulate his thoughts, memories, and

perceptions (Descartes 138).

Furthermore, Descartes cannot prove that he is himself, nor can he determine if his

memories are either his or the demon's (Descartes 138). Descartes counter-argues that if this evil

demon controlled our perception, then what we perceive would be a demonic and hellish

Weinstock 2
 The Limits of Knowledge

representation of reality. Instead, reality is relatively dull. The simple response to this argument is

that the demon is evil; a boring reality is more tortuous than a hellish one. However, this is not

confirmation of the evil demon. Descartes has no idea if the evil demon exists or not. Yet there is

still a possibility, however ridiculous it may seem, that there is a demon deceiver. It is because of

this possibility that Descartes must doubt everything and believe in nothing. Due to this

metaphysical doubt, he has effectively destroyed the second foundation of mind.

b. Meditation II: The Concept of the Cogito

The destruction of his foundations of knowledge has cast doubt on his very existence —or

has it? Descartes finds that he is unable to doubt one innate idea, “I am, I exist” (Descartes 138).

Descartes accepts that he could be being actively deceived by an all-powerful, all-evil demon, but

he innately knows that he, as a thing, exists. In order for this demon to deceive someone, the

deceived must exist. Otherwise how could the demon deceive? The demon cannot deceive nothing.

If he creates something to deceive instead of Descartes, the demon is still creating something.

Therefore, Descartes must exist as a thing because the demon is constantly deceiving Descartes.

However, Descartes needs to prove that he is a thinking thing.

A thinking thing. And what is that? Something that doubts, understands, affirms, denies,
wills, refuses — and also imagines and senses (Descartes 140).

Descartes determines that he has already proved that he is a thinking thing. He has done so

by demonstrating the will to meditate, the understanding of his deception, the affirmation of his

existence, the denial and refusal of his insanity, and most prominently, his doubt everything, Based

on this, Descartes concludes that he must exist as a thinking thing. Cogito ergo sum—I think,

therefore I am (Descartes 141). Furthermore, the mere action of thinking about his own thoughts

is proof enough that Descartes thinks, regardless of whether or not those thoughts are tainted by

Weinstock 3
 The Limits of Knowledge

the demon. However, while Descartes knows that he is thinking, he is not sure if he can trust those

thoughts yet.

In conclusion, because Descartes is being actively deceived by the demon, he must actively

exist as well. Additionally, if he doubts his own thoughts, he is by definition thinking. Therefore,

Descartes is a thinking thing that actively exists.

c. Meditation III: God’s Existence

Now that Descartes has proven his own existence, he reasons that in order to prove

everything else, he must first prove that an all-good, all-powerful God exists. He does so by first

establishing a Great Chain of Being. This is a hierarchy in which an absolute infinite being, like

God, is on the highest level of perfection and everything else resides at progressively lower levels

of perfection, or greater levels of imperfection. Residing at the bottom of this chain are finite beings

such as humans(Descartes 142). As Descartes moves up the hierarchy from the bottom, he notes

that each being is more perfect than the last. In recognizing the all-perfect God as the architect of

all existence, Descartes proposes the concept of efficient cause. Efficient cause stipulates that a

being cannot cause an effect more perfect than itself in the process of creation. For example, it

would be impossible for a finite being to create an infinite being because infinite beings are more

perfect than finite beings. However, finite beings can create other finite beings. For example, in

order for the water to freeze into ice, the water must be cooled at a temperature as cold or colder

than 32° Fahrenheit.

Efficient cause remains as a constant between two types of reality — Presentational

Reality and Formal Reality. Presentational Reality is the level of perfection that exists in thought

(e.g., the perfect nation). Formal Reality is the perfection that actually exists in the material world

(e.g., The Roman Empire). In other words, if Descartes thinks about another finite being, then the

Weinstock 4
 The Limits of Knowledge

imagined finite being must have been created by something as real as the finite being itself.

However, a problem still remains in Descartes’ reasoning; because Descartes is a finite being, he

can only think of things that are equal to or less perfect than himself. If efficient cause is consistent

between Formal and Presentational Reality, then how is it possible that a finite being such as

Descartes can have an idea of a vastly infinite being like God? The only possibility is that upon

Descartes’ own creation, God imprinted himself in Descartes’ mind, much like an artist signing

his own work (Descartes 146-147).

To conclude, because efficient cause remains constant in both Presentational Reality and

Formal Reality, finite beings cannot have any idea of an infinite being such as God. However,

every Cogito has an idea of God. Therefore, God must have implanted the idea of itself in the

thoughts of the Cogito. Because God is an innate idea, or in other words, an idea familiar to us

since birth, God cannot be man-made, but rather God must exist . Therefore, God must exist.

But how can Descartes be certain that the all-powerful, all-evil demon god does not exist

as well? Descartes reasons that there can only be one infinite being with the same level of

perfection of God, God itself. In order for a being to be all perfect, it cannot merely have a sliver

of infinity like the Polytheistic Hellenic and Etruscan religions 2. In order for an embodiment of

pure infinity to exist, it must take the form of a united and singular being (I.e., an all-powerful, all-

perfect, all-good God). This being of pure infinity cannot be a plurality. Therefore the evil demon

cannot exist as a being with the same or greater level of perfection as God.

2 Note that polytheistic religions contain gods who have limited domain. Furthermore, these gods engage in constant conflict with
their godly brethren. Take for example the religion of Ancient Egypt; there are over 50 major gods (and literally hundreds of
minor gods), each with a specific domain of infinity (i.e., Osiris is the god of the living, Ra is the god of the sun, etc.). Because of
this, some gods control more than others, leading to petty squabbles. The most notable is the conflict between Horus (god of war)
and Set (god of chaos).

Weinstock 5
 The Limits of Knowledge

Now Descartes stresses the fact that in order for God to be all-perfect, it must also be all-

good. In Meditation IV, Descartes concludes that,

Fraud and deception always contain imperfection, and, while, the ability to deceive
may seem a sign of cunning and power, the desire to deceive reveals malice or weakness
and therefore cannot be among God’s desires (Descartes 148).

If deception is form of fraud, the implication is that deception is imperfect (Descartes 148).

Given that God is an all-perfect being, it cannot physically do anything imperfect. Therefore, god

cannot deceive or create anything that intentionally deceives. Furthermore, the Demon cannot be

at the same level of perfection as God, and so the Demon cannot exist since God is incapable of

creating something with deceptive features.

d. Mediation IV: Error & Understanding

How is it possible that humans, as products of an all-infinite God, become erroneous?

According to the stipulations in Meditation III, God could just as easily make humans as close to

perfect as God itself, but instead it creates humans to be imperfect — why? Descartes argues that

because we are merely finite beings, we cannot know everything. Because we don’t possess initiate

knowledge, it would be nigh-impossible to understand God’s reasoning behind its actions

(Descartes 152). Furthermore, humans can only see themselves in a limited scope, and therefore

can only see their individual imperfection. However, Descartes believes if we expand our scope to

a cosmic scale, we will find that we are merely cogs in the perfect clock that is the universe

(Descartes 152).

However, this does not solve the question of why we are capable of deception if God is

incapable of such an action. Descartes argues that because humans are finite beings, they lack the

same perfection as God. As a result, there is room for error in humans. But, God has also bestowed

a facility of judgment upon his human creations. And it is because of this judgement that humans

Weinstock 6
 The Limits of Knowledge

have the ability to doubt or believe concepts. Don’t forget, though, that God is incapable of

deception, which means that the judgment bestowed onto humans by God could be perfected. If

humans use their judgment correctly, they will never go wrong. However, because humans are

erroneous by nature, their judgments can mislead them if they use it incorrectly. In Meditation VI,

Descartes, through an analogy of poisoned food, concludes that, “...what the man’s nature impels

him to eat is the good tasting food, not the position of which he knows nothing (Descartes 157)”.

Humans are deceived because we, as finite beings, do not understand the limits of our judgment.

In other words, humans get deceived only when their judgment fails them and they don’t know

that they are being deceived.

e. Meditation VI: The Material World, the Body, & the Mind
To summarize the conclusions in the uncovered fifth Mediation, Descartes proves that the

external world exists. Descartes explains that there must be objects outside of himself because he

can perceive them. Since God is not a deceiver, the material world must therefore exist (Descartes

153).

In this meditation, Descartes begins to question whether he has a body. Because Descartes

is a thinking thing, he can be certain that he has a mind. However, Cogito ergo sum does not prove

that he has a body. e can be certain that the concept of body exists, however. Due to the conditions

of efficient cause, if he has the Presentational Reality of a body, then it only makes sense that there

is a Formal Reality of a body as well. He concludes that the body and the mind have a type of

communalist relationship. The body is not required for the mind’s existence because the body is

merely a catalyst for the mind. On the other hand, the body cannot exist without the mind because

the mind is not an extension.

Weinstock 7
 The Limits of Knowledge

A different way of considering the relationship between the mind and body is through

Cartesian Dualism. Cartesian Dualism refers the duality between will vs. ability. The mind has

the ability to will infinitely, but the body has limit of what it can and cannot do. Descartes could

have the will to lift his cabin in the woods all he wants, but at the end of the day, his body is not

able to complete this herculean task. Another aspect of Cartesian Dualism is the distinction

between material and immaterial; two distinct substances that interact with each other constantly

(Descartes 156). The body is material because of its ability to divide. Take the Reign of Terror, for

example; despite the absence of heads, the trail of corpses left behind in Robespierre’s wake still

remain bodies, albeit deceased, headless bodies. If one amputates all their limbs, they still have

their body. However, the mind is indivisible, and therefore immaterial. Additionally, because the

mind is immaterial, it lacks the ability of movement, while the body, being material, can move. In

other words, if the body can move, and Descartes can move, Descartes must, by all logic, have a

body (Descartes 156).

Moreover, Descartes concludes that his senses are passive. Instead of the

experiences happening due to Descartes, his senses occur due to something happening to him.

Consider weather. As I write this essay on my Chrome Book outside of my home with no shelter

from the elements, it is raining. I cannot will the current downpour, nor the impending pneumonia

to cease because the rain is happening outside of my control3. So, I must logically infer that the

rain is happening to me and my Chrome Book, and that everything I experience is, in fact,

happening in the physical world (Descartes 156). However, as is made problematic in Meditation

I, we could be dreaming all of this since dreams can be as real as the waking world. However, this

3Furthermore, I cannot go back inside my house because I am locked out for numerus reasons. Two reasons being that no one is
home to let me in, and I do not possess a house key. I cannot will the house keys to reappear in my pocket, nor can I will
someone to be in the house.

Weinstock 8
 The Limits of Knowledge

would be impossible because this deception is caused on such a grand scale, that the only culprit

would be God itself. Because it has already been established that God cannot physically deceive,

we can conclude that the physical world is real. There is always, of course, the possibility that God

is deceiving humans for the greater good, and that humans, as finite beings with limited knowledge

cannot understand the motive of God (Descartes 156). Descartes has yet to overcome his dream

argument, so there is still a possibility that he is dreaming.

i. Separating Dreams from Reality

I couldn't distinguish dreaming from being awake — for I now notice that dreaming
and being awake are importantly different: the events in dreams are not linked by memory
to the rest of my life like those that happen while I am awake. If, while I am awake,
someone were suddenly to appear and then immediately to disappear without my seeing
where he came from or went to (as happens in dreams), I would justifiably judge that he
was not a real man, but a ghost - or, better, an apparition created in my brain (Descartes
159).

Now that the there is no chance of a demon deceiver manipulating his thoughts, Descartes

can now rely on his memories. Because his memories are reliable, he can now discern the

difference between his dreams and his waking world by appealing to his memory. By appealing to

his memory, he can notice that his waking life is on a spatiotemporal continuum. That is to say,

his location in space and time remain constant. Whilst in dreams, Descartes could be dreaming

about being in France, meditating in his cabin in 1639. He could then open the door and find that

he somehow teleported to Hapsburg Spain in 1645. In dreams, the spatiotemporal continuum of

the waking life could be broken. This is not possible in the waking world. Furthermore, Descartes

reasons that in dreams, weird things happen. For example, if everyone Descartes met began to turn

into horrific bug-people, Descartes would not even raise an eyebrow if he were dreaming.

However, in the waking world if such a thing were to happen, Descartes would at least question

why the people were turning into bug-like abominations, if not run away in utter terror.

Weinstock 9
 The Limits of Knowledge

Finally, if Descartes were unable to distinguish dreams from reality, that would imply that

he was being deceived. Once again, the only being capable of accomplishing such a task would be

God. Since God is physically unable to deceive, Descartes must therefore, be awake (Descartes

160).

II. The Limits of Knowledge

a. Hume’s Epistemology

In Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he begins by writing about the

universal truth that memories are less vivid than the actual experiences from which the memories

are derived. Take for example a car crash. You can recall the fear and the crash, however, you will

never feel the same intense sensation again 4. Hume makes a distinction between the concept of

ideas and impressions. Impressions are the lively feelings and sensations that one perceives both

internally and externally (e.g., the color red, falling in love, getting stabbed, etc.). Ideas are non-

physical concepts like thoughts, memories, and mathematics. Hume summarizes this distinction

with a simple maxim— "...all the materials of thinking are derived either from our outward and

inward sentiment” (Hume 191). In other words, experiences are the origins of all ideas. How could

this be possible? Hume argues that there can be no idea without experience. Because Hume argues

that one can only gain knowledge from experience, there can therefore be no a priori knowledge 5.

However, what about things Hume never experienced? For example, say Hume has never seen a

Blue Whale, nor has he seen every single mammal in the world, but yet he knows that Blue Whales

4 Of course, Hume stipulates that this truth only pertains to regular human beings, with no metal irregularities. Such afflictions
like PTSD recreate the memory with vivid intensity.
5 This point of no a priori knowledge refutes mediations III-VI. According to Hume, we cannot experience infinity because we

are finite. Because infinity cannot be experienced, we cannot experience God. Therefore, God does not exist. Without God’s
existence, the rest of Descartes’ arguments fall flat.

Weinstock 10
 The Limits of Knowledge

are one the largest warm-blooded mammals in the world. In this case, he would Hume know such

things without having experience?

Furthermore, how can Hume be certain that 2+2=4 or that triangles have three sides? Hume

argues that there is a concept of Relations of Ideas. Relations of Ideas are non-contradictive

concepts that do not depend on external senses. Math is one such concept, if a 2+b2=c2, then c2 will

always be the sum of a2+b2 (Hume 193). Relations of Ideas must be true because they rely on the

mere operation of thought (Hume 193). If something is a relation of an idea, the idea must be true

no matter what state the world is in (e.g., triangles have three sides). There is no requirement for

evidence, because the idea will always remain true. In order to determine if a relation of ideas is

true, one just needs to understand the idea, not experience it. In contrast, Matters of Fact are claims

based on experiences, and can be contradictive. For example, I claim that while I write this essay

outside, it is raining. This claim is true, but the denial of that claim is plausible. Because this claim

is susceptible to doubt, mere operation of thought is not sufficient. You have to make observations

in order to conclude whether or not the claim is true. In other words, you have to experience it in

some way(Hume 191).

And what about fantastical concepts like dragons? Hume reasons that all ideas are merely

a matter of compounding, augmenting, transposing, and diminishing experiences. In this case, a

dragon is just the combination of a bird and a very angry lizard. However, if Hume accepts that all

knowledge is derived from experience, Hume could begin to fall into a cycle of inductive

reasoning. This is where instead of having a conclusion and finding evidence to support said

conclusion, you find evidence and then draw a conclusion based on observations. In other words,

the main problem with inductive reasoning is that our minds typically fill in the blanks to draw its

own conclusions(Hume 194). If we see a wallet on the ground (evidence), we assume that someone

Weinstock 11
 The Limits of Knowledge

dropped it (conclusion), not that the wallet just appeared on the ground. Furthermore, if Hume

observes that a cup falls 100 times when the cup is dropped 100 times(evidence), he can conclude

that the next time the cup is dropped, the cup will fall(conclusion). Due to habit, he presumes that

the future will act accordingly to the past (Hume 193). However, Hume argues that there is no

justification for this line of thought. For all he knows, what he perceives as gravity is actually

invisible creatures carrying the cup down at an increasable speed. In other words, there is nothing

that ensures that the cup will fall. Since we don’t have certain knowledge that the cup will fall a

101th time, we must be content with the probable knowledge that the cup will fall (Hume 193). In

other words, there is no cause and effect with dropping the cup and having the cup fall.

b. The Conjunction of Billiards

Hume argues that cause and effect do not exist because we never experience it. Hume uses

billiards as an example to demonstrate his claim. Hume witnesses the que-ball break the triangle;

however, he claims that what he sees is not causality, but rather, just the experience of a series of

impressions which he then later calls causality (Hume 194). However, Hume never experiences

the actual force of the que-ball hitting the triangle of balls. It is much like explaining how it feels

to be in love to someone who has never experienced love; this person can only have an idea of the

concept. Furthermore, because Hume as experienced the events of the billiards as constantly

conjoined, habit forces him to think that there is a causality (Hume 194-5). However, imagine a

Weinstock 12
 The Limits of Knowledge

child with few experiences 6, then you toss a stuffed animal at him. What would he do? Hume

argues that nothing would happen. The child would not flinch, and the stuffed animal would collide

with the child. Because the child has no a priori knowledge of what happens if something is thrown

at him, he will not react (Hume 200). However, if you were to chuck a pen at a person with more

experiences, the person would react to the fast-moving projectile because they have already

experienced something being thrown at them in the past. This thought experiment further

strengthens the claim that causality is just the effect of constant conjunctions of experience creating

habits and customs of belief.

c. The Limits of Existence

In Hume’s Of Skepticism with Regard to the Senses, Hume establishes the concept of

Continued Existence (Hume 176). Continued Existence is the idea that the existence of something

outside of our own perception might or might not continue to exist. For example, if Hume were in

London, there is a possibility that his house in Edinburgh does not exist because he cannot perceive

his house at that moment. Yet he assumes that his house still exists anyway because it always

remains to exist upon his return(Hume 176). In this way, he is not saying that nothing exists. One

thing is certain, however; Hume along with everyone else does not have knowledge of reality, but

rather has knowledge of habit. Hume also explains the idea of a double existence. Double existence

is the idea that there is a wall separating impressions between the inner mind and the outer world.

Hume only has impressions in his mind, which is one impression of existence. However, Hume

does not have a second impression, which is the impression of the real world 7 (Hume 177).

6 The child is fully capable of experiencing things, though.

7 Similar to Descartes’ Evil Demon and Dream arguments.

Weinstock 13
 The Limits of Knowledge

But tho’ this conclusion from the coherence of appearances may seem to be of the same
nature with our reasonings concerning causes and effects; as being deriv’d from custom,
and regulated by past experience; we shall find upon examination that they are at the
bottom of considerably different from eachother, and that this inference arises from the
understanding and from custom in an indirect and oblique manner (Hume 180).

As mentioned in the previous section, what we perceive is merely constant conjunction

and not cause and effect. The concept of conjunction is also known as Constancy and Coherence.

Constancy is the concept of things happening in the same mannor. If you drop a pen, the pen will

always fall downwards. Coherence is the concept of patterns. If in nature, the sun has always risen

in the past without fail, it is safe to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow (Hume 180).

d. Anticlimax

Hume concludes his essay by simply stating that there are two ways to interpret Continued

Existence. One way of interpretation is that everyone could become skeptical of everything and

live lives of doubt. Another interpretation is, to put it bluntly, to not care one way or another

because at the end of the day, according to Hume, its fine that he doesn’t know whether or not the

external world exists (Hume 181). It all works out either way. If the external world exists, then

things carry on as usual; the sun will always rise, and the pen will always fall to the ground. If the

external world does not exist, it’s clear that whatever is replacing the external world works on

regular patterns. Once again, the sun will rise, and the pen will drop because that’s what it has

done in the past (Hume 181).

III. Conclusion

I believe that Hume’s argument is valid for one simple reason; Hume has read Descartes.

Weinstock 14
 The Limits of Knowledge

Because Hume has read Descartes, Hume can refute all but three of Descartes’ arguments (the

demon argument, the dream argument and the Cogito). The rest of Descartes’ arguments fall short

if Hume can refute the existence of God. If Hume is able to prove the non-existence of God, then

the evil demon in Descartes’ meditations could still exist, thus rendering Descartes’ proof of the

physical world null and void. As mentioned before, God is the embodiment of pure infinity. If we

can only gain knowledge through experience, however, we cannot experience infinity as matters

of fact, nor can we have an idea of infinity as a relation of ideas. Imagine trying to think of the

image of infinity, chances are, that image has an end to it. This is because we are finite beings and

cannot fully grasp the idea of infinity. Therefore, infinity does not exist and therefore, God does

not exist.

Weinstock 15