I believe it is unreasonable to doubt things you normally take to know on the grounds you might be dreaming. I support this by counter arguing Descartes’ method of doubt and ultimately breaking down elements of his argument by presenting the idea that dreams and reality are two separate entities and have different elements, which determine the nature of them. I will then look at how consciousness plays an important role, which enables one to perceive with clarity the state they are currently in. I believe as long as reason and logic exist, it is possible to attain knowledge despite being in the grip of a dream or hallucination. Descartes' reasons for doubting seem wild and extravagant and seem to create a bigger problem that leads to difficulties in pursuing his intentions of revealing certainties from uncertainties.
Firstly I will raise critical views which show that Descartes' method of doubt leads him towards a series of regressions and creates an endless cycle which he can not get out of. By only doubting he will eventually become stuck; as doubt gives no belief therefore no hope in retrieving a goal or attaining it. I believe hope [belief] is an essential element in retrieving knowledge, with out hope there is no possibility to obtain knowledge. Hope or belief creates a possibility that doubt erases. Isn’t it then logical to conclude that it is more likely knowledge is attainable when in the state of belief as this enables one to move through the possibilities which result in a better chance of obtaining knowledge? What I’m saying here is it seems pointless to place oneself in a position of complete doubt because it would only strip away the ability to obtain knowledge and therefore leaves one in a state where they are trapped and unable to make progress in ...