Think by Simon Blackburn - Chapter 1: Knowledge

Appearance and Reality; Descartes; Rationalism vs Empiricism; Foundationalism vs Coherentism

This is the start of a series of posts, covering the topics discussed in Think: A Compelling Introduction To Philosophy by Simon Blackburn.

The Book is split into the following chapters:

1. Knowledge

2. Mind

3. Free Will

4. The Self

5. God

6. Reasoning

7. The World

8. What to Do

As you may have guessed, this post covers Chapter 1: Knowledge.

Appearance and Reality

What if the world is just a dream? What if we’re living in a Virtual Reality? Is the world even real?

This chapter begins by asking questions like this, questions we probably asked ourselves in childhood. However, at some point, most of us stopped asking questions like this.

But is this ok? How do we know that the world is what it seems to to be? Is it ok to just accept this?

How do we begin to think about the relation between appearance and reality: things as we take them to be, as opposed to things as they are?

I can definitely relate to asking similar questions as a child, and those questions not really leading anywhere. This introduction definitely rekindled that childlike curiosity and I was excited to see what some of the great minds of the past had to say.

René Descartes

Questions of this nature have been asked by humans from time immemorial. However, the books suggests a clear beginning to our inquiry, 10th November 1619, when Descartes shut himself away in a heated room to escape the cold.

During this time he had dreams, which revealed to him a new philosophy, “the unfolding of the one true way to find knowledge.” From this, came his great philosophical work Meditations.

Descartes: The focal point of this chapter

Meditations: Books 1 and 2

The author presents a summary of Descartes’ thesis in “Meditations: Books 1 and 2”. I will now risk further oversimplifying Descartes’ arguments.

Descartes wants to strip all knowledge down to what he can know with complete certainty. To this end, he employs his “Method of Doubt”, doubting everything around him. Descartes also suggests we try to imagine an “Evil Demon” who’s sole aim is to deceive us.

He then gets to a place where he’s left with no solid foundation to stand on, that is, until he realises that, this doubt in his mind, who is doubting? It is certainly me, I am doubting, I am thinking, I exist.

‘Cogito, ergo sum’: ‘I think, therefore I am.’

The author quotes many parts of Meditations, whilst providing further clarifications and insights. He manages to strike a balance of getting Descartes’ point across without detracting from the work itself. In fact, I’d say he adds to it with poetic phrases like “the lonely rock of the Cogito”

I feel like I’ve got a good feel for both Descartes’ logic and his writing style, which from what I’ve read thus far, is simply breathtaking. I have to say that I was left feeling like I just had to read Meditations myself.

Critiques of Meditations

Now that the reader has somewhat of a grasp on Descartes’ philosophy, Blackburn then turns to asking some questions, trying to poke holes in Descartes’ thinking.

Some questions are raised around how sound the logic Descartes is employing, whilst others are focused on whether the “I” can be stated in “I think”. Surely we can only say “It thinks” and then ask what is this “it”. Who is thinking? How can we be sure it is “I”?

Definitely lots of food for thought, and a helpful way for understanding how philosophers may interrogate each other’s ideas.

The author moves on to the rest of the Meditations, where Descartes tries to claw his way off of “the lonely rock of the Cogito”. His way off, he thinks his via his “trademark argument”. The author is a lot less flattering here.

So, the trademark argument is one that strikes most of us as far from demon-proof—so far, in fact, that it seems pretty easy to resist even if we are not at all in the grip of extreme doubt.

I will have to read the Meditations to come to my own conclusion.

Rationalism vs Empiricism

At this point, other philosopher’s critiques are brought to the fore, most prominently David Hume. He posits that Descartes “Method of Doubt” is inherently flawed. That trying to deduce everything from some “Original Principle” is simply not possible. That Descartes was doomed to fail.

Hume provides an alternative. He agrees that our knowledge needs some sort of foundation. He instead suggests that our foundation must start from a different place, that our senses and reasoning are truthful. This must be assumed and can’t be reasoned from some other “Original Principle”, or so says Hume.

For Descartes, the Mathematician, it was as if he was seeking some sort of mathematical proof to connect appearance and reality. Whilst for Hume and other British philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, their paradigm was that we gain knowledge through experience rather than by reason.

This is why Descartes, and those who have a similar view of Knowledge are called “Rationalists”, whilst Hume and co were called “Empiricists”.

The debate between the Rationalists and Empiricists is at the heart of this chapter, with Descartes its focal point. After reading this chapter, I can understand why Blackburn decide to structure it in such a way.

Coherentism vs Foundationalism

However, one thing he makes clear is that, on further inspection, there are a lot more similarities between Rationalism and Empiricism. A lot of the times the line between both can seem quite blurred.

Both views start from some Foundation, and hence both come under “Foundationalism”. Rationalism can then be referred to as “rational foundationalism” and empiricism as “natural foundationalism”.

The author mentions another school of thought that runs contrary to Foundationalism. It suggests that there is no need for such a foundation. Instead, it emphasises having a coherent set of beliefs. Just like how a web may be made up of interconnected tissues, these beliefs are held together, and made stronger by their interconnectedness. This is called “Coherentism”

Any part can be replaced, provided there is enough of the rest on which to stand. But the whole structure cannot be challenged en bloc, and if we try to do so, we find ourselves on Descartes’s lonely rock.

I personally find the foundationalist beliefs more compelling, but I will have to revisit Coherentism at some point too.

Further Reading

Descartes dominated this chapter and so it is natural that the first book I’ll be picking up when I want to dive deeper into Epistemology is Descartes’s Meditations

With all of this talk of “Rationalists” and “Empiricists”, it is only natural to look at other leading Rationalists like Spinoza and Leibniz. As well as the leading Empiricists like John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume.

In the introduction, it is mentioned that this book can be read in isolation or as a companion to Descartes’s Meditations, Berkeley’s Three Dialogues or Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding seems to be seen as a good introductory philosophical text and also focuses on Epistemology, so this may be what I read after Meditations.

Final Thoughts

Hopefully, this summary has piqued your interest. I think just off of this chapter alone, this book is worth getting.

I may be biased. It seems like I have a natural affinity to Epistemology, at least at this time, or perhaps it is the way the Blackburn set out about writing this chapter.

Either way, this was a fantastic introduction into the topic. The landscape of Epistemology has been painted, but now it is up to us to take this further, and understand the finer details on the canvas.

Rating - 5/5