Disputing Descartes's Worry That One Might Be Deceived about the World by an Evil Genius

Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Disputing Descartes’s Worry That One Might Be Deceived about the World by an Evil Genius
Introduction
The evil demon became a more controversial and disputable Cartesian philosophy to both ancient and present Cartesian scholars. The concept also contributed in fiction science films and more specifically the movie "Matrix trilogy." This movie has intercepted several cognitive inputs and outputs and manipulated them to create a powerful illusion to reframe the way ideas are perceived, thought and acted upon which in reality, are demon generated. These ideas are in perfect agreement with the ideas of Rene Descartes that he explains in his meditations of the first philosophy. He argues that he does not possess enough evidence to validate his senses as they may be fabricated by the demon. This forms the basis of his worries that there could be an evil genius that deceives us in the way we reason and justify our senses. However, critically analyzing Descartes arguments, I believe that there is a way of ruling out his worry that one might be deceived about the world by an evil genius. In this paper, am going to back my arguments to show the flaws in his arguments to support skepticism.
First, Descartes fails to warrant skepticism about his claims in as much as his claim that senses sometimes deceive us in some instances. By supporting his claim, Rene presented some varied examples in which he believes that his senses had cheated him. Justifying the claim that one's senses have deceived needs that particular individual should recognize when the error has occurred (Gillespie 8). This means that an individual should be able to differentiate instances where he or she has been correct and when mistaken. For instance, to justify that heat mirages that take place on paved roads are deceptions, one needs to be aware of optical illusions that can be experienced on such roads especially on a sunny day and that whatever can be visualized is indeed no more than an illusion (Frankfurt 19). Being aware of this, one would have the power to see through a deception thus overcoming being deceived. Satirically, it must be summed up that in elaborating instances of when the senses are deceiving, one is also elaborating on instances where human beings can visualize through deceptions (Frankfurt 28). This ends up diluting the evidence to back the claim that is being put forward. This is the case with Rene's claim where he presents both cases where humans see through deceptions as well as claiming to have been deceived by the senses (Frankfurt 57).
It is not that one can never be deceived, but the fact that we can see through deceptions is the point I want to stress. Since we have this ability to see through our deceptions, it then follows that we can comfortably trust our senses provided that we are suitably cautious. Trusting senses is likened to trust a rope while climbing (Gillespie 73). There are instances when the rope fails but can guarantee safety whenever the user is suitably cautious. Doubting our senses on the claim that they deceive us is like abandoning the climbing rope based on the claim that it occasionally fails (Gillespie 85). This, therefore, shows that Rene's arg...