The common factor that one would take away from Peter Paul Rubens and Caravaggio, Is that they both concentrate their works on the times. However their are some known differences between the two. While Caravaggio’s art is thought to be very intricate details . His paintings tending to use a lot of Dark variation of colors along with light making his painting seem very fog like. His works combined a realistic observation of the human state. In contrast, Peter Paul Ruben ,The artist of Flemish realism, tend to show more Bright vivid colors. As a result , offering a better sense of lighting .He is known for his Religious and Mythological compositions.
Gassendi criticized this theory saying that Descartes could just have regarded the previous knowledge as uncertain (cited by Norman) instead of demolishing everything. It is not necessary to consider everything as false. He felt that such an approach convinces the human mind that there is a devil who tricks us. It is simpler to admit the weakness of human nature. Gassendi pointed out the universal and hyperbolic nature of the Method of Doubt. Descartes argues that it is not possible to free ourselves of all the errors that the human mind has been soaked in. He firmly believes that universal and hyperbolic nature is necessary for the Method of Doubt to succeed. Descartes in his argument to demolish everything and start afresh applies the universal character and gives the analogy of a basket full of apples. To select and retain the good ones and discard the bad ones, it is wiser to empty the basket, then select the good ones and keep them in the basket. He feels this is a better and simpler way than picking out the rotten ones from the basket full of apples. He believes in first rejecting all beliefs as if they were false and then after careful analysis, adopt only the ones, which are true. One bad apple can rot the whole basket so if we were to pick out the bad ones, there is every possibility of overlooking one bad apple. On the other hand, if the whole basket is first emptied and then the good ones placed back, we can be sure of only adopting the truth. Descartes’ method of doubt, as foundation of knowledge does seem more effective than what has been suggested by Gassendi. When the basket is totally empty, it can be cleaned and then fresh, good apples picked and placed in the basket. It is a much faster process than negating the bad. Secondly, when the basket is empty, the stains left behind by the rotten apples can be seen and cleaned, which is not possible when the bad apples are picked out from the lot. His argument to discard everything as false relies on his argument that the mind believes on whatever it perceives through the physical eye. He did not believe that anything should be left to imagination. This has a sound basis, as the mind cannot imagine what it has not seen. In order to support that all prior beliefs are wrong, he discussed three stages – the sense, dreams and the evil demon hypothesis. Descartes asserts that these do not have the power to falsify what we ‘seem’ to perceive. What we see through the sense mislead us. We cannot begin with doubt. Descartes even goes to the extent of affirming that even the external world that we perceive is an illusion, a dream and hence false. The enquiry has to start after eliminating all such perceptions. The next argument that arises is whether the escape from hyperbolic provides a satisfactory foundation for knowledge? This can be explained by an analogy of a building, which requires the use of a bulldozer to demolish it. A light bulldozer would make the ground appear immovable. Hence, a bigger bulldozer is more effective, which means the more hyperbolic the doubt, the better it is. According to Descartes, the Evil Genius Doubt is the most powerful doubt. This evil genius makes us believe the false as true. For instance, the transparent truths like 2+3=5 or that a square has only four sides, are knowable. For people to know, understand, and accept the>GET ANSWER