the argument of the first meditation
one can be totally deceived
that is all one believes could be false
this argument assumes knowledge to begin with
but curiously as an unknown
if I don't know (and I don't) what is true
then yes I may well be deceived
but how would I know this?
unless I was already sure about what the standard of truth is
if I don't know this
I can't know that I am deceived
deception presupposes knowledge
Descartes' argument in the first meditation
leaves knowledge - truth assumed - but not stated
questioning this assumption - that there is indeed knowledge
destroys the argument of universal deception
we are left with doubt - not certainty of deception
doubt regarding the grounds of our belief
we have no grounds for the argument of universal deception
for we have at this stage no standard of universal truth
and doubt here should be for Descartes - not knowing with certainty
perhaps certainty is doubtful
does this mean that we do not know?
if it is the case that there is no certainty -
how can we know we are deceived?
Descartes argument operates with an unknown standard of knowledge
and he asks could everything be false -
relative to this unknown?
the fact is we can't say
we don't know
we can't know
we have I suggest no grounds for doubt - in the first meditation
