This article attempts to discuss the first question. It will build on Descartes' first two meditations, which represent Rationalism, and draw on empiricist views for contrasting views and discussions. I will draw from the curriculum for reference, namely "Think, Simon Blackburn, 1999" and "The Philosophy Gym, Stephen Law, 2003". Furthermore, references to the slides from the "Knowledge" seminar will be used. In Descartes' first meditation, he argues that everything he perceives as reality might as well be the work of an omnipotent evil demon whose sole goal is to deceive him. As such, anything perceived as real, and therefore capable of knowing that it exists, could be an illusion created by the evil demon. From this point of view, knowledge is quite fallible since everything could be an illusion. An example of this would also be the scenario “A Brain in a Vat”, (Philosophy Gym, p.25). This argues that the entire perception of the world might be false as the brain might as well be in a vat on an alien ship, fed with stimulants so that consciousness can perceive things, while not being aware of its actual situation. The conclusion to draw from this is that we cannot know anything for sure. Or at least demonstrate that everything we perceive is real. Therefore we cannot know anything for sure. In Descartes' second meditation, however, he argues that being able to speculate that his reality is invented by this demon is actual proof of his existence. As he is actually thinking, it must be something. A thinking “thing”. By proving its existence, it also proves that it is possible to gain some kind of knowledge. The knowledge of one's existence. While Descartes is considered a… middle of paper… That said, empiricism also has its flaws. Another example would be crime statistics. The first time I saw a black man, he was committing a crime. Therefore, all black men must be criminals. Applying a little skepticism to this example would perhaps help nuance one's perception, for example the first time I saw a black man, he was committing a crime, but just because I've already experienced it once, doesn't mean everyone black men are criminals Both perspectives at their extremes don't seem to work very well, one way or the other. Therefore, it could be argued that to obtain or use knowledge in a practical and sensible way it is necessary to combine the two. True and sensible knowledge, however, can only be found with strong skepticism, cf. Descartes' first two meditations. Works Cited Think, Simon Blackburn, 1999 The Philosophy Gym, Stephen Law, 2003