此外，在《沉思集》中，笛卡尔强调怀疑人类所看到的一切，因为魔鬼在欺骗人类。但我想指出的是，如果人生活在这些条件下，假设确实有一个实体在欺骗人，那么人将没有理解真理的基础。我相信人不应该因为害怕未知而退缩，如果一个人真的因为有一个实体在欺骗人而怀疑一切，那么人应该从这种思维中产生，并相应地思考。当某人是自己思想的作者，而那个思想的作者确实在某些方面是错误的。我想说的是，这并不是因为一个强大的人被欺骗了，而是因为他的无知。思想的作者根本不知道那是什么东西。不是因为某个强大无比的骗子，而是因为缺乏知识，思想的作者欺骗了自己。错误通常是由于缺乏知识而发生的。总之，我相信笛卡尔的怀疑方法实际上只在一定程度上是有用的，但除此之外的任何地方都是完全荒谬的，对人类的思维是一种危险。确定性不可能从怀疑中产生，因为在怀疑一切的同时，你也在怀疑真理。在怀疑“真理”或寻找真正的真理时，它胜过了笛卡尔的怀疑方法。在数学上，我认为数学不能仅仅因为它是唯一符合某种确定事物的科学而被用作怀疑方法的中心科学。最后，怀疑的方法并没有显示出任何“答案”的迹象，也没有什么真理的基础，相反，它所陈述的一切都是怀疑一切，直到人类达到那个真理为止。也就是说，人类最终会无限地怀疑自己所感知的一切。这样做，如果一个人确实毫无理由地怀疑，我认为使用怀疑的方法是没有意义的。
新西兰代写留学生作业:怀疑真理
Furthermore, in the meditations, Rene Descartes emphasizes on doubting everything man sees because the devil works to deceive man. But I would like to point out, if man lives under these conditions, and supposing that there is indeed an entity that is out to trick man, man will not have a basis in understanding what is true. I believe man should never cower in fear of the unknown, and if a man does indeed doubt everything for the sole reason that there is an entity out to deceive man rather man should rise from this thinking and think accordingly.When someone is the author of his own thoughts and that author of thoughts is indeed wrong in something. I would like to argue that it is not because a supreme powerful being deceived that author of thoughts rather it is a mistake because of ignorance. The author of thoughts simply did not know what that thing is. It is not because of some supreme powerful deceiver rather the author of thoughts deceived himself because of his lack of knowledge. Mistakes in general happen because of a lack of knowledge.In conclusion, I believe Rene Descartes’ method of doubt is in fact useful only to a certain extent, but anywhere beyond it is downright absurd and a danger to the thinking of man. Certainty cannot emerge from doubt simply because in doubting everything, you also doubt truth as well. And in doubting “truth” or finding the real truth it beats the purpose of using the method of doubt of Rene Descartes. On Mathematics, I believe that Mathematics cannot be used as the central science in the method of doubt simply because it is the only science that conforms to something that is certain. And lastly, the method of doubt does not show any sign of an “answer” or a basis of what is true, rather all it states is to doubt everything until man reaches that very truth. Meaning, man will ultimately continue to doubt everything he senses without a limit. In doing so, if man does indeed doubt without a cause, I see no point in using the method of doubt.
