Considering Of Descartes’S Claim And Explaining On How It Is A Very Plausible Choice

René Descartes’s meaning behind the phrase “Cogito, ergo sum,” popularly being translated to “I think, therefore I am,” can be applied to ideas such as “It seems to me that I see light. Therefore I see light.” This Cartesian idea of perception suggests that because I believe I see something, I see that thing. I am going to consider Descartes’s claim and explain how it is a very plausible choice, but also how it is wrong in some instances.

Descartes’s First Meditation ends with him believing an “evil genius” is out to deceive him of everything he once believed was true which leaves him hopeless. He concludes this meditation by questioning all worldly objects, wondering if there is anything’s existence that he does not have a valid reason to doubt. However, his Second Meditation turns more to his inner self when he realizes that he cannot doubt that he exists since he is able to be deceived. If I am deceivable, then I must exist. Furthermore, saying “I exist,” is correct every time I conceive that idea, thus making my existence stand true. Now that I know I exist, it leaves myself asking the question: what am I?

I am a thinking thing. One that uses my mind to think. My mind exists independently as it is a substance of some sort. The essence of the mind lies in my thoughts. These thoughts are used to affirm, doubt, judge, deny, and perceive. If I believe I see light—if it is certain that I think I see light, then I am a perceiving thing. But what is this perception?

Here, Descartes uses an example of a wax candle. He observes a wax candle in its normal state and takes note of it. Then, when it is heated, a physical change occurs as the solid wax becomes a partly liquid state in which liquid falls along the rest of the wax. However, Descartes knows that the object is still wax, so how does he perceive that? It could be nothing observed by senses, since everything under the category of smell, sight, touch, taste, and hearing were changed from the heating of the wax. Thus, the only viable option is that the mind must have perceived the wax as such. The perception involved neither physical contact nor sight, leaving only an intuition of the mind. Our clear and distinct perception allows us to see the light. Despite our senses being proven untrustworthy such as in the wax example or the evil genius attempting to deceive us, if we seem to see the light, then no external factors can influence that idea otherwise. This idea, when contemplated clearly and distinctly, looks rather obvious that it cannot be wrong. This intuition stems from us knowing that we exist. Once we confirm that thought, then our future thoughts, such as this one, cannot be wrong or misguided by others. If I think I see a light of some sort, that thought is true, regardless if it is a light or not. It is not wrong that it seems like I see light, and nobody can say differently. Descartes further describes that since our perception of external events is a purely mental act, the knowledge of our minds is the easiest knowledge to obtain. That is not to say that our mind is always correct, as we may not know sometimes if we are just irritated, or upset about something else. Our mind holds deceit, but since we observe external events mentally and not physically, it provides us with an easier access to knowledge than any other kind.

Now that Descartes’s concept of perception has been discussed, it is time to evaluate it. The idea seems right in theory as we tend to perceive many things every single day, whether it be from watching the news, talking to friends, working out, or even studying. These perceptions might be as simple as realizing that I need to work out more or study harder, and they are generally correct perceptions. We tend to perceive many things correctly instead of incorrectly. If we were to perceive things incorrectly from the earliest of times, humans could have possibly eaten all poisonous foods and had the entire species erased. These correct perceptions have taken humans through centuries and centuries of life while becoming more innovative through the process. With the application of perception, science has developed and thus led to the great development of technology. Perception has brought us a mass amount of information and knowledge throughout time. We have survived due to it. However, we have not just perceived things correctly and still do not today. From the example earlier about perceiving what to eat, what about the times where humans were incorrect and ate something that hurt them and possibly even killed them? Despite humans having a great sense of perception, we have had many downfalls where we perceive moments incorrectly.

I will present some situations that I deem valid of disproving Descartes and hence proving that our perceptions can be incorrect. First, it is worth noting that our perceptions tend to be incorrect in more intense and emotion driven situations. An example could be if I was at a concert with my spouse and a man in some specific outfit was flirting with her, I might attribute that outfit or “look” the guy had to another guy that looks similar, perceiving him as something negative and harmful. This perception becomes triggered from a past experience that evoked a negative emotion from me. When I apply that perception out of fear or anger to the next guy that dresses in an identical manner, there is a decent chance that my perception is completely wrong, but I want it to be right since I sense a bad situation. This applies to any situation mainly where one has had a bad experience. A common one for many children could be the dentist. Many children either remember a bad taste in their mouth or some pain that was associated with the dentist one, and thus they perceive it as an evil place that does nothing good for them. This perception is wrong at least in the sense that the dentist is for the greater good, despite if some pain is associated with it. One’s perception on the dentist might even change as time goes on, and I am a direct proponent of that wrong perception. I used to hate the tastes and feeling from the dentist and perceived it as horrible, but that perception has changed; I think the dentist is a great place where I receive a healthy treatment that helps improve my dental hygiene. Perceptions can most certainly be wrong, especially when a bad memory becomes associated with them. One’s first perception of a situation has a big impact on their later perceptions of the same situation.

Another solid example can be when I buy a car at a dealership. If I go to buy a 2012 Prius at a dealership and the sticker price is $15,000 but I negotiate down to $12,000 and buy the car, I might perceive that interaction as a positive one where I left with the upper hand. However, I may not know that that was an overpriced price and the dealer was willing to settle for as low as $10,000 if I would have really vouched for that. Similarly, if all other dealerships nearby were selling the same 2014 Prius for a sticker value of $12,000 that might influence my perception of the “deal” that I thought I received. Thus, there is a certain amount of truth that we may not know in situations, no matter how correct we may think we are. This is not always the case, but it seems like there is always a better deal we could have gotten for the same product elsewhere. And if that is not the case, then that would mean that I single-handedly get all the best deals in the world, which would make everyone else’s “deals” not the best ones, thus proving that incorrect perception exists at least somewhere. Although perception tends to be correct, these every day examples show where it can be incorrect and we do not even acknowledge it.