In Descartes’s Discourse on Method, Part 1, he makes the argument that there should be one final path that all people follow. His idea is that if all people used their logic to follow this one method, there would be no disagreements and humanity could work together to follow the same truth. Descartes has some basis for his ideas yet is missing certain arguments against it. This paper will evaluate his argument, clarifying the different points behind his reasoning, which will then lead into an opposing side arguing as to why more than one method could be best. Descartes defines sense or reason as “the power of judging well and of distinguishing the true from the false” (Discourse Part 1, 1). In his view, Descartes believes that every man is…show more content… With this amount of similarity humanity would not have to worry about arguments over what is true because every single person would use their equal logic to reach the same conclusion. “…and that the diversity of our opinions does not arise from the fact that some people are more reasonable than others, but solely from the fact that we lead our thoughts along different paths and do not take the same things into consideration” (Discourse Part 1, 1). In this sense, each person has the same reason when born, taking the same things into consideration would lead humanity to uncover truth. No other methods means no…show more content… Were one person to initiate the thoughts and everyone else to follow and agree because their reason is in the same direction, there is no logic behind believing what this person says to be true. Were everyone to just be born using the same method, the method would have had to come from God. In this sense it must be the right method because as Descartes later states, God is not evil and therefore cannot deceive. The problem with this logic, however, is that if God were to implant this method within man that erases the idea of free