Descartes and Doubt the Question to Be

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 of truth, the actual reality could not be known until it was, in fact, discovered; the truth was sought without an understanding of what that truth might be, which goes to the necessity of maintaining the course through doubt.

What is the origin of your point-of-view? In all "truthfulness," that is difficult to answer, for it seems to be a visceral belief. 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 scripture to be read by laypersons led to the truth of the Reformation, or at least to the truth of the agenda within the Church prohibiting the practice. Time and again, mankind forges the argument that doubt is essential, as evidence of falsehoods perpetually presented as truth is eventually disclosed. This view, moreover, is substantiated by the most ordinary situations in life. For example, the abused wife hears from her spouse that he loves her, and he himself may believe this to be true. Only by doubting his assertions, prompted by the abuse as definite cause for doubt, may she arrive at the real truth of the circumstance.

What are other points-of-view on this issue? It is held by some that truth must inevitably reveal itself, and without assistance. This is an optimistic, but deeply misguided, viewpoint, for it removes from the inherent obligation of thinking from individuals, which is to apply reason. It presents, in fact, a scenario profoundly demeaning to humanity, for it places it with species incapable of rational thought, and consequently free of the responsibility to reason. That ability is one which must be employed, and this assertion in no way relies on spiritually-driven beliefs in senses of destiny or purpose. It is more pragmatic than that; howsoever humanity comes by its faculty of reason, it is a thing clearly to be used, as could be said of a human being's limbs.

Another point-of-view is that truth may be uncovered by means other than doubt, which are usually prompted by unpleasant associations with doubt itself. Fearful of being seen as "skeptical," some then believe that truth may be found through a passive approach. That is to say, the belief is that patience and inactivity will erode barriers to truth. This is a view not unlike the first mentioned, in that both rely on a kind of active presence of truth as a participating agent in its own discovery. This is pleasant, but unrealistic, given the noted history of truth as difficult to ascertain. Then, to desire truth with no effort is to hopelessly undermine the search itself:

"It were far better never to think of investigating truth at all, than to do so without a method" (Descartes, Chaffee 103).