Rating: 
Summary: A fantastic stimulus for the mind
Review: "A Discourse on Method: Meditations and Principles" is more than a book, it is a challenging and rewarding mental experience. It is a tough read but well worth it just to read "I think, therefore I am" in its proper context (the simple statement that Descartes considers his first principle of philosophy). The book is divided into three parts. In "A Discourse on Method," Descartes lays out his first principle of philosophy, and his plan for rejecting false assertions and deriving true principles. The "Meditations on the First Principle" is the wide ranging essay where "I think, therefore I am" is expanded to include all of its implications. These implications are wide ranging, from the existence of God, to the existence of our bodies, other physical objects, various scientific principles, and finally, whatever we are able to know as truth. Here is where the book poses its greatest challenge. At this point I was only reading 2-4 pages at a time. Then when I finished this part, I went back and reread a bulk of it to fully grasp the key points of the "Meditations." The third part, "The Principles of Philosophy," wouldn't have been so difficult if my brain hadn't been taxed as it was by the "Meditations." But the Principles are well organized and clearer, making the book more satisfying to read again. Overall, this book is a treasure as an intense mental revelation. It brings together Descartes' best writing for the general reader, if the reader is up to the challenge.
Rating:
Summary: A philosophical treasure
Review: A landmark in the history of philosophy and a founding text for modern scientific method, by which is meant cautious scepticism, disinterested enquiry, taking absolutely nothing on trust, but instead subjecting everything to the searching knife of criticism. This is a key text, if you wish to learn to be self-reliant and to develop the powers of your individual mind. Astonishing -- an enduring contribution of a man who was, and is most likely to remain, the greatest thinker in history.
Rating:
Summary: Descartes "Cogito" is the foundation of modern philosophy.
Review: Although this version, like most other translations, looses precision in transition from Latin to English, it is still a classic that is a absolute must read for anyone who is serious about understanding metaphysics. Descartes shows that one's consciousness is itself an undeniable fact of existence; so long as conciousness exists it is a certain fact that something exists, namely the conciousness itself. What is that conciousness? It is us. Conscious beings are what we essentially are, says Descartes. When the first artifical intelligences struggle with the question "what am I?" they will, if they are not only intelligent but also conscious, come to conclusions similar to those of Descartes. Rene Descartes' concept "cogito ergo sum" (often translated, somewhat misleadingly, as "I think therefore I am") stands as one of the few unshaken foundations of modern philosophy. Some philosophers see a fallacy in the logic of "cogito ergo sum" but the fallacy is in the translation rather than in the logic. The words "cogito" and "scientia" are very loosely and interchangebly translated as "think" or "knowledge" but they mean quite different things. The cogito phrase, so often translated as "I think therefore I am", really means that conciousness implies existence. Descartes writings certainly have many flaws, such as his weak "proof" of the existence of God. Yet many of his errors may be attributed the age in which he lived and his desire to protect himself from harm. It is said that when Descartes found out Galileo had been arrested for communicating his astronomical discoveries, Descartes literally ran to publishing house to stop the presses that were printing his own similar scientific discoveries. The "Discourse on Method" and the "Meditations on First Philosophy" are monuments of achievement in modern philosophy. We are conciousness beings, and few books bring the implications of that fact more vividly to life than the "Meditations". If you can't read the original Latin then by all means get your hands on a good translation. Don't rely on some commentator telling you what is or is not of value in Descartes. There is no substitute for the original. Be sure to follow up Descartes with the philosophical writings of George Berkeley and David Hume. They are giants. If you stand on their shoulders you will see far.
Rating:
Summary: Descartes: "What can be known?"
Review: Can anything be known to be certain? This is a more difficult question than most people might recognize. Rene Descartes says yes and presents us with one of the most elegant thought experiments in the history of philosophy. We begin by calling into doubt all claims of "knowledge"; believing nothing that cannot be affirmed with absolute certainty:
Imagine now that an all-powerful, all-knowing being might exist external to that which we can experience with our senses, i.e., external to the material world (recall that we can neither know this nor know otherwise). Imagine further that this extra-material entity may be a devious trickster, messing with my mind, perhaps to amuse a twisted sense of humor. Because the possible trickster would exist external to the access of scientific scrutiny, I could, in my state of absolute skepticism, never know whether this sadistic consciousness is at work, not only in the material world, not only in my conscious perception of the material world, but in fact in the perceptions of all other conscious beings as well. Thus all scientific proofs might be mere illusion and there could be no means of determining this. In other words, if all material objects and all subjects of thought are inherently uncertain, and this is indeed a logical conclusion at this point in our consideration, what then could be known with certainty? Is then the only absolute certainty this universal and impenetrable uncertainty? Could it ever be truly known that anything exists apart from the possibility of the trickster? Only one thing: that [without regard to whether or not it is being deceived] the mind of the thinker must exist, for otherwise there is not even the illusion that our consideration is happening. Thus the only thing that I may know beyond any doubt is that my mind does exist. Cogito ergo sum, i.e., "I think, therefore I am." This singular certainty is not without further implications. For while we have established that consciousness (i.e., mind) is more certain to exist than is matter, we don't know why this should be true. Or do we? Descartes says that there is a reason we must reach this conclusion and presents his ontological argument for the existence of a perfect and beneficent Mind beyond material constraints and uncertainty (that mind being God).
Whether or not Descartes believed he had "proved" the existence of God is not a very interesting point (apparently he thought so). As Pascal pointed out, such proof -- or disproof -- is not possible within the inherent limits of human investigations (Pascal found nature and reason to powerfully infer God's existence in a probabilistic sense, while "scientific" proofs must be uncertain, uncertainty being the nature of corporeal existence). What Descartes did "prove" is that the idea of an extra-cosmic mind is a rational conclusion (and is rational to a greater extent than any phenomenological observation that we might assume to be "true"). Some claim to rebut Descartes' ontology citing his geometric analogy, which was based in the Cartesian paradigm of his day. This is no great difficulty however, another mathematical illustration might have been developed had Descartes knowledge of 21st century mathematics. In fact, Descartes asserts that his conclusion does not rest on his understanding of geometry (which was about to be overtaken by Newton's mathematics). He believes that he could provide "an infinity" of allegories to illustrate his ontology. Here we find an expression of how Descartes' struggle with vanity leads to some hasty proffers (finite beings cannot wholly examine an infinity, even if we accept the existence of such). Many other thinkers, who agreed with some of Descartes arguments, quickly took umbrage with his more disputable statements. Descartes then rebutted these rebuttals. In fact some of these arguments continue today. Such is Descartes' importance to [some say "modern"] philosophy.
There are still other interesting aspects to these essays: Descartes' method (which is sound), his interest in medicine, physiology, neurology, his anticipation and analysis of "artificial intelligence" (three centuries before science fiction writers 'invented' the idea). Also interesting is the author's plea to the public (the work is clearly addressed to a general readership and not to his nemesis, the Jesuits, as some reviewers mistakenly suggest). Noticeably struggling to maintain his humility, the brilliant Descartes asks to be left to his work in physics. Rather than taking precious time to explain and defend his theories, he wishes to be left alone to focus on his work, asking to be judged and explained by it after his death.
Rating: 
Summary: Almost completely wrong, but great to read anyway
Review: Descartes "Meditations" are accurate up through "Cogito Ergo Sum", then they kind of fall apart a bit because he uses a version of the Ontological Proof for the Existance of God as the basis for his further proofs. This book is absolutely a classic of Western Philosophy and many other great philosophers have used critiques of this book to launch their own systems of thought. I highly recommend it, both so that you can get a feel for where modern philosophy came from and to sharpen your own critical thinking skills.
Rating:
Summary: Way to go Descartes!!!
Review: First of all, shame on all of you teachers who teach Descartes and only read either the Discourse on Method or Meditations on First Philosophy - as opposed to both of them. As a result of this, 100% of the students that read only ONE of those works hate Descartes. Why? Because they complement one another. It's like reading the first half of The Great Gatsby or the last half and expecting the students to appreciate it. Discourse on Method - A method of what? The method is announced in the second section. Descartes has something special he wants to share with us -- he has discovered the mathematics that makes modern physics possible! This mathematics is analytic geometry. He has a serious problem though. Nine years before he wrote this work, Galileo was forced to recant his discoveries by the openminded Jesuits because it threatened their... God? Bible? I dunno. Descartes, upon first glance, brilliantly tricks the Jesuits because he proves the existence of God alongside his new discovery. How can the Jesuits make someone recant a work that proves the existence of God? This work also contains the good 'ole stages of radical doubt (all that "I think therefore I am" business. What this means is that despite doubting literally everything, he cannot doubt that he exists. Why? Because he is aware that he is doubting and doubting is a form of thinking. So since I'm thinking, I must exist). ----Meditations on First Philosophy - Oops. Descartes outsmarted himself. By creating his stages of doubt, he wanted to show the following. I cannot trust my senses because they deceive me sometimes. How do I know that I'm not dreaming? How do I know that even mathematics aren't reliable, for God might be evil and deceiving me. Can you see what he is setting up? If he can prove God's existence, guess what the only reliable faculty exists that can judge what is reality and what is not? You guessed it, his new mathematics/physics. But he outsmarted himself (you can read it for yourself) because it is impossible to prove God's existence. Personally, I don't think he even believes in God but needed to prove God's existence to provide stability to his physics for the public. If it wasn't for the Jesuits, I think Descartes would have simply made his announcement and let the public decide for themselves whether it was valuable or not. To give you an idea of how significant of an invention this is, I'd argue it is the single most important discovery over the last 2,000 years. Back to my original point, though. If one only reads the Discourse, they don't know what he is setting up with his physics. If one only reads the Meditations, one knows he is setting up something, but cannot know WHAT is being set up. Read it and watch him bamboozle the Jesuits for a couple of good laughs. It's brilliant rhetoric.
Rating: 
Summary: Very circular
Review: I felt more confused than anything. However, mostly everything that he say's is intriguing and well advanced for it's time. I mean he is the father of modern philosophy. In the end, his analysis of mind, matter and God are great.
Rating:
Summary: Father of modery philosophy is a great mental catalyst
Review: It is well worth his proof that we can only be certain of uncertainty, our thinking self via Cogito Ergo Sum. Yet he finds himself skidding along the slippery slope of circular reasoning by attempting to rebuild external reality in hopes to prove God's existence. When reading Descartes, I often become fascinated with ideas that he did not intend to be major areas of concern, but were nonetheless a direct result of topics he spoke. This happens quite a bit in the Sixth Meditation. A great companion for Descartes, in explicating and refuting his thought, is Thomson's DESCARTES TO KANT, which serves the whole of modern philosophy as well. Move from here to Hume or Kant.
Rating:
Summary: Father of modery philosophy is a great mental catalyst
Review: It is well worth his proof that we can only be certain of uncertainty, our thinking self via Cogito Ergo Sum. Yet he finds himself skidding along the slippery slope of circular reasoning by attempting to rebuild external reality in hopes to prove God's existence. When reading Descartes, I often become fascinated with ideas that he did not intend to be major areas of concern, but were nonetheless a direct result of topics he spoke. This happens quite a bit in the Sixth Meditation. A great companion for Descartes, in explicating and refuting his thought, is Thomson's DESCARTES TO KANT, which serves the whole of modern philosophy as well. Move from here to Hume or Kant.
Rating:
Summary: blue or red pill?
Review: Morpheus: Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream, Neo? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?
Â
René Descartes (1596-1650) chose the "red" pill. He chose to question the comfortable assumptions of his time. The work of Copernicus and Galileo had exposed flaws that Descartes sought to resolve. His scientific attitude, his style of thinking, his method set the trend for the future. As Herr Doktor Hans Küng wrote in his landmark text, _Does God Exist?_, _There is no one who personifies the modern ideal of absolute mathematical-philosophical certainty better than the brilliant inaugurator of analytical geometry and modern philosophy._ No one today thinks seriously of science as other than an objective endeavor. Star Trek's Mr. Spock is admired. Why bother reading Descartes? It is not a quick read. The language is difficult and the thought processes are not all clear and distinct. The reason I am motivated to read Descartes is because I feel that to accept the prevailing scientism without questioning its premise is to deny the basic premise of Descartes. I have an interest in spiritual matters, and that often leads me to question conceptual certainty. To ignore Descartes is to take the "blue" pill. In the excellent introduction to this version, Dr Tom Sorell writes, _This intellectual individualism, and the idea that the typical scientific attitude is one of questioning great deal and asserting only what one can be certain of, are now utterly absorbed in modern thinking about the conduct of enquiry in general. In this respect Descartes is one of the founders of modern thought, not just the father of modern philosophy._ Descartes believed that when the methods and its applications were considered together, it would be possible to see in them the outlines of a comprehensive science capable of answering any factual question that the mind could propose. Many people today still believe this. The success of scientific discovery and technology, indeed progress, itself, has benefited from this attitude. Equations relate known to unknown elements. Difficulties are divided under examination into as many parts as possible with clear relations to one another. Who questions this approach? It is the basis of systems theory, of categorizing our world, making it manageable, controlled, predictable. Subject and object are distinct. Descartes' confidence in his new method can be seen as he applies it to metaphysics, namely the existence of a deity. Dr Sorell identifies the conclusion that a non-deceiving God exists as _perhaps the most important in the Meditations. Once it is established it guarantees the truth of 'I am thinking, therefore I am' which otherwise has only subjective certainty_ Descartes' conclusion about God, which he confirms by another proof in Meditation Five, guarantees the reality of precisely those simple things (i.e. shape, size) needed to construct the sort of physics (i.e. a mathematical physics which explains all phenomena as the result of the motions of matter)._ Strangely, the foundational belief in God, so integral to Descartes methods, has been set aside in modern scientism. This skepticism is not entirely groundless because Descartes' proofs of the existence of God have not faired well in history. His clear and distinct methods, so powerful in characterizing the natural world, have provided certainty of self but are still uncertain of God. As Dr. Küng points out, _Even Descartes' contemporaries objected that the proof of God appealing to clear and distinct knowledge is in the last resort not conclusive but rests on a vicious circle._ His ontological argument remained conceptually convincing only as long as ideas are granted a reality of their own. Yet, the objective standard set by Descartes, so automatically applied to the natural world, is too often tossed aside when addressing existential or spiritual matters. Everyone is an expert on religion, it would seem. The attitude, central to Descartes' methods, of questioning a great deal and asserting only what one can be certain of is utterly ignored outside the field of scientific enquiry. Dr. Küng writes, _What was the consequence of all this for the relationship between subject and object, reason and faith? Subject and object were torn apart and existed unconnected alongside each other: there was a cleavage between self-understanding and understanding of the world_ Conceptual certainty is a long way from existential security. Reading A DISCOURSE ON METHOD MEDITATIONS AND PRINCIPLES by René Descartes has helped me to understand the founding principles of my world view. His example is a role model for me to question this view and to take responsibility for my own assumptions. It has strengthened my spiritual commitment as I understand the limits of the clear and distinct Cartesian system and move towards my own eternal security. If you are interested in the foundations of modern thought, if you are interested in awakening from the dream that is its embrace, then, this book may be interesting to you. Ironically, this book is a tool to break from the world view it created. Descartes is offering you the "red" pill. ;D PAZ Catrina
|
