A Universal Perspective on Belief: A Response to Pragmatic and Cartesian Approaches to Epistemology (*note to reader:I hope this gives all of you struggling with some concepts in Intro to Philosophy a clearer view on how to approach your own paper, please do not plagerise) The approaches given by Pierce and Nagel to the epistemological questions of doubt and belief, though diverse in that they are strictly pragmatist and Cartesian, contain a similar underlying principle. They both serve to show that belief cannot come from any source that appeals to ones feelings or purposes, experiences or impressions. Beliefs must arise from a non-personal means. Although this is a commonality between the two approaches in epistemology, they are greatly different arguments in their focuses. Pierces pragmatist approach surfaces along the lines of techniques people use to found their beliefs of reality, here assuming reality from the start, and using that as a foundation to delve into questions of the unknown. Nagels look at the Cartesian approach primarily doubts reality, and uses that as the grounds for the rest of his argument, asking how we can know anything beyond ourselves. These approaches lead to very different views on epistemology. Pragmatism: Pierces Approach to EpistemologyPierces approach to his epistemological questions of doubt and belief is solely pragmatic in nature, in that he states beliefs are established in habits, which reoccur in our determining of our actions; doubt, on the other hand, is an uneasy state we want to release ourselves from, to come to a belief (46). We then gather from this, that doubt and belief have positive effects on us, both causing us to act. Pierce begins his approach with a discussion of the irritation of doubt(46). This he describes as an immediate motive for the struggle to attain belief (46). Once this belief is attained, we are entirely satisfied because our opinion is satisfied, which is,...
