Descartes and Doubt The question to be addressed is as follows: if you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things? As the following will illustrate, I am convinced that the answer is in the affirmative. Moreover, I believe that the query is unnecessarily qualified; in my estimation, any pursuit of truth demands exercising doubt on a consistent basis, and certainly more than once in a lifetime.

Questions and Responses

What is your initial point-of-view? I believe that seeking truth inherently requires a willingness to practice skepticism with what is presented as truth, and with virtually anything encountered in the course of seeking real truth. Furthermore, I feel that the willingness referred to must reflect an active commitment, and not be perceived as an occasionally needed behavior.

How can you define your point-of-view more clearly? A more precise definition of my point-of-view can be had by better defining the components of the question. That is, it is essential that a seeker of truth be genuine in the ambition, as it is equally important that "all things" be the objects of doubt. If these two realities are in place, then the view may be expressed this way: a truly authentic interest in discovering truth, in any arena, demands an exercising of doubt in order to penetrate the many and diverse obstacles typically masking truth.

What is an example of your point-of-view? In pragmatic terms, an example of this view was the investigative journalism of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the 1970s, which resulted in the Watergate scandal and the resignation of President Nixon. The truth of the circumstance, that the President had sanctioned the attempted theft of sensitive Democratic Party materials, could only be arrived at by a consistent doubting of the obfuscatory explanations provided by the government to shield the administration. More importantly, as in other pursuits...

I believe I use reason as an individual must, but there is as well conviction on a level below reasoning processes, or so innately created by them as to seem indistinguishable from feeling. Consequently, my belief's origin is a visceral sense composed of witnessing and taking in multiple experiences in which I observed that truth does not readily present itself.
What are your assumptions? First and foremost, I assume that most of us are endowed with the ability to reason, and to hone that ability. Secondly, I assume that truth is, if not deliberately concealed, a quality difficult to isolate. Truth is, in a sense, an elemental property, in that it is intrinsically the core of a reality, and this typically renders it not immediately apparent. Then, I assume that the process of doubt, exercised properly, is an instrument by which barriers to truth may be removed. Lastly, I assume that doubt is a natural and healthy facet of a thinking individual's being, as expressed by Descartes: "But what is a thinking thing? It is a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies..." (105).

What are the reasons, evidence, and arguments that support your point-of-view? The answer relies on the inevitable relation between evidence, reasons, and subsequent argument. For example, humanity's history has provided a vast amount of cases wherein truth has only been found by means of doubt. Generally speaking, any trial in the legal system evinces this, as a prosecution applies doubt to uncover truth which is disguised by defendants. On a grander scale, accumulating doubt as to the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church's refusal to permit…