[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Flieger

So we covered the first two of Descartes' medetations today. So far he makes sense to me. There is a paradox in the evil demon argument in the way the teacher presented it, but if the premise is slightly revised it works, and I realize what Descartes was getting at. I am talking about how his beliefs could all be wrong because of the deceiver, yet that is not true because he does know one thing for certain -- that he exists (or rather his mind exists). So if you say "maximally deceived" instead of that all his beliefs are suspect things work out.

It seems weird at first to think that if something so crazy can be imagined to be true (the evil demon) then it opens up a tiny bit of doubt about every belief one has. But then he does say that he does not believe that the evil demon exists, and that he will continue to use his scientific knowledge so long as it appears to be the best explanation, but that he will just know that there is almost nothing known for certain. So I guess it basically just means to remember you can be wrong on almost anything so examine what you think you know and be skeptical, but carry on to the best of your ability.

I can't find any fault in the argument of the senses or argument from dreams so those sort of back-up the paradoxical evil demon scenario.

Evil demon = fairy tales.