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?
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
Rating:
Summary: Was he for real?
Review: The father of modern philosophy was also an innovative mathematician. But his philosophical enquiry was committed just to one question: ÒIs there anything we can think of, which by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside of our thought? If yes is the right answer, there is a bridge from pure thought to things, if not, notÓ (Bertrand Russell). Descartes, when prodded to it by his critics, was gracious enough to admit his debt to St. AugustineÕs ÔSiloloquia,Õ but pointed out that he had shifted the SaintÕs argument from the mere acquisition of knowledge to an existential statement, perhaps the only in its kind that creates an empirical fact by mere thinking: ÒIn dubito, in cogito, ergo sum.Ó
This first premise led Descartes to a number of valid deductions. Since he now was completely sure about his own existence, the former or eminent cause prior to his present state had to be equally real, and so all the causes prior to that. This of course is a sneaky way of saying that if the first cause argument should hold water, then it leads to something as real as myself. But does it? Why should the chain of prior causes ever come to a halt? After all ÒCausation is not like a hired cab which one dismisses once it has arrived at its desired destination.Ó (Schopenhauer) On the other hand, how can we be sure that there is any cause that would precede the present state of existence? Consciousness might be possible in on of at least 2 forms: either in the shape of an uninterrupted continuum, or as a discontinuous series of separate moments of awareness.
Both possibilities may draw their perceptions from some sort of subliminal referent or memory bank, which would operate as the eminent cause for our existence. However a truly discontinuous sequence of brighter moments could just as well be operated by hypnotic suggestions, such as: Òwhenever you awake, you remain oblivious to the fact that this is all you are aware of and you will append false memories of a past that never was.Ó This is quite possible, as every able hypnotist will tell you. So even the perception of continual awareness might turn out to be illusory. An independent recording device could of course reveal the true nature of our awareness, (provided it isnÕt itself merely a figment, in which case it may repeat infinitely the same mental image, like an object placed between 2 facing mirrors.) Such recordings could testify to dramatic differences between separate moments of lucidity. Life would take us through a multitude of alternative worlds, but unfortunately only of one, the latest, can we ever be aware. (Confused? EverettÕs theorem proposes a similar thing for quantum physics.) Descartes himself hadnÕt seen these possibilities yet, but decided to keep things simple and proposed that thinking would ÒproveÓ the existence of an immortal and immaterial soul.
However this compelled him to devote a lot of attention to animal intelligence. Because if animals can think, they too would have immortal souls. And since such conclusion grossly contravenes Christian theology and could have spelled serious trouble for the philosopher, this opened a whole new can of worms. Descartes had to prove that animals cannot think and therefore advanced the usual arguments, that animals cannot use language, that their behavior is not terribly adaptable, that their seeming exhibition of intelligence is actually guided by instinct, etc. But by addressing animals as ÒsoullessÓ machines he opened himself wide for criticism, and materialists like LaMetrie, employed DescartesÕs own principles and applied them on man as a biological machine. (In a way, this discussion anticipates our present day debates on artificial intelligence. It even has a bearing on future explorations of deep space. If E.T. is out there but doesnÕt look as we expect it to look nor acts as we imagine it to act, then how do we recognize an intelligent life form?)
But for the moment, Descartes felt he had covered all his bases and proposed his famous proof for the existence of God: Ò... recurring to the examination of the idea of a Perfect Being, I found that the existence of such Being was comprised in the idea in the same way that the equality of its three angles to two right angles is comprised in the idea of a triangle, (sic! We shall remember that!) ... consequently it is at least as certain that God, who is this Perfect Being, is, or exists, as any demonstration of geometry can be.Ó Now, this raises a question: Did Descartes really mean what he said? Because just one sentence before this ÒproofÓ we read this: ÒI perceived that there was nothing at all in these demonstrations which could assure me of the existence of their object: ... for example, supposing a triangle to be given, I distinctly perceived that its three angles were necessarily equal to two right angles, but I did not on that account perceive anything which could assure me that any triangle existed ...Ó Strange proof, that begins with its own refutation.
I canÕt imagine that any of DescartesÕs numerous correspondents, failed to spot this slight of hand. But only Hobbes was rude enough to touch the sore. There was a reason for this discretion. Not too long ago, Giordano Bruno had been roasted alive over a slow fire, and Galilei, after a look at the thumbscrews, had retired from science. So you better covered your back with a few symbolic genuflections towards Rome. Descartes did, and thus he became the founder of modern philosophy and of postmodern insincerity as well, leaving it to the reader to figure what he really had meant to say. With this in mind, Descartes is still one of the most inspiring and original thinkers of the modern era.
Rating: 
Summary: Intense and intersting foundational work!
Review: What if reality is an illusion? How can you know if *you* aren't part of that illusion? If the world is a construct whose sole purpose is to fool your senses, what kind of conclusions can you draw about the nature of reality? Can you prove you exist? Can you even trust your thoughts? These very large questions if not dismissed consist hyprebolic doubt (aka Cartesian Doubt). By asking and analyzing these very big questions, Descartes proved that you exist, and while not trustworthy, the mere fact you _have_ thoughts, proves it (Cogito Ergo Sum). Unfortunately, due to the high level of rigor and extreme doubt, it has proven impossible to build upon that very sound foundation, and his arguments trying to take it further do not express nearly the same level of rigor, and pale to his powerful first conclusions. With the style of analysis and fearlessly examining this, he created the basis and foundation for most modern philosophy, since many schools of thought is based upon getting off his rigorous and rather lonely dead end island of "Cartesian Doubt" with a non-rigorous assumption or supposition. The book is a fast, and intense read, appearing to have been written over a few days. The reader is taken along for the ride and in my case, my mind was blown at the level of rigor. To me his argument leading to "Cogito Ergo Sum" is as close to a bulletproof, rigorous, perfect argument that you can experience. Its only weakness, though, if you stick to that level of rigor, you really cannot prove anything else besides your own existence! Definitely worth the price of admission. Especially to non-philosophers like myself! Dig in!
|
