Theories of Knowledge: Socrates Meets Descartes - Essay Example

?Theories of Knowledge: Socrates Meets Descartes Many scholars argue that Socrates and Rene Descartes are two of the most influential philosophical minds. Socrates is viewed as a classical philosopher focusing on epistemology and logic influencing much of Western Philosophy. Rene Descartes was also analytical focusing on mathematics and was one of the key figures leading the Scientific Revolution. Because these two philosophers have had such as prominent role as founding fathers of philosophy, Peter Kreeft highlights how a modern and classical philosopher can combine ideas to become the two primary influences that are more highly regarded than any other philosophical mind. Though they are both revolutionary in their ways of thinking, Kreeft notes that “each began by doubting and questioning everything, even the commonplaces everyone else took for granted.” (11). It is this method that both shared that gave them thorough insights not matched by any other because they began each question with no presuppositions or prejudices and took a subjective approach to answering philosophical questions. Throughout the book, Kreeft uses a variety of techniques to provide a deeper understanding of these philosophies. Both of these men had differing reasons for their quests for knowledge and understanding. Kreeft notes that in the case of Descartes, he wanted to “overcome the skepticism of many of the best thinkers of his time (especially Montaigne) by discovering the one absolute certainty that could be used as the starting point of a new, more certain philosophy: ‘I think, therefore I am.’” (12). Socrates, on the other hand, developed his Socratic method which is essentially what Keeft terms a “logical cross-examination.” (14). Though both had a slightly different methodology, they both desired to reveal indisputable truths that could not be refuted. Rather than do a point by point comparison of the similarities and differences between the two, Kreeft takes a unique and creative approach in defining their outlooks by presenting a hypothetical meeting of the two. In a fictitious discourse between the two philosophers, their views are revealed and the comparisons are quite clear. The opening section, The Meeting, does not demonstrate any specific philosophical outlooks but the dialogue demonstrates precision and directness in each response indicating each philosopher’s need to state only what is absolute. This method of characterization presents the rational and objective discussion that can be expected in the remainder of the book. This concept of truth is continually addressed throughout the book and Kreeft provides great attention to this as Socrates and Descartes hold each other accountable for all statements. For example, Socrates comments to Descartes that his book is not only successful but has influence well after his death. Because Descartes does not know in his lifetime that this would be the case, he responds to this statement in a very matter-of-fact manner, “So you can see the future here?” (23). He is forcing Socrates to prove this statement furthering the premise that nothing can be accepted unless it is proven. The second thing this conversation does is allow Descartes to speak on his approach to philosophy from his own perspective. Though this is written based on his work and methods, the point Kreeft wants to make is this is how Descartes saw his own approach to revelation. Descartes says here, “I wanted to offer a radical alternative to all three, beginning with a refutation of skepticism and proceeding to a philosophy that was truly scientific.” (25). What he had done here was describe his method in contrast to the three basic unreliable methods he saw applied during his time. He wants it to be known that his approach is scientific or based on factual evidence alone. This point is reiterated when he states, “I made no assumptions. It was an experiment; I did not assume any particular result beforehand.” (25). This again points to the importance of objectivity in the approach and it important to Descartes that this be established. As Kreeft continues the conversation, it further proves Descartes scientific approach, but also the responses by Socrates shows his approval of the approach and also continually reiterates how much of impact this way of thought has on future thinkers. “I am impressed - with the simplicity and clarity and obviousness of your idea and also with its size and power, so to speak, the world-shaking differences it could make.” (36). What Kreeft does is use these types of statements to remind the reader of the impact specific approaches had on other philosophers. Descartes and Socrates would not have known the far-reaching impact their techniques would have in the future. Kreeft also uses this conversational form to reveal their philosophical methods. For example, Socrates asks Descartes if he would mind if Socrates presented his argument in syllogistic form to which Descartes responds, “Be my guest. You invented syllogisim after all!” (37). With this discussion, Keeft is able to reveal that Socrates originated syllogism, give an example of this style, and reveal Descartes philosophy all on one discussion. This practical application demonstrates this approach in process rather than attempting to define it. This style also allows Kreeft to make commentaries and judgment on the methods of the philosophers without it being as obviously author opinion. Another example is Descartes responding to one of Socrates’ points stating, “That is a clever sophism, Socrates.” (42). Again, this statement reveals the style being used after an example of it in use. Kreeft also tells the reader this is a clever method. This commentary style also allows the author to explain what the philosophers are not to avoid confusion or to clear misconceptions that some might have. For example, because the sophists existed in the time of Socrates it is important to clarify how he differs. Descartes questions him on this fact to which Socrates responds, “I am neither a sophist nor a scientist; I am a philosopher.” (43). This allows Kreeft an opportunity to demonstrate the differences between philosophers and scientists which is key as these points are often confused as what modern readers define as scientists and philosophers differed in previous time periods and it is important to understand those differences. Sometimes definitions are key and they too are revealed through conversation. Descartes tells Socrates he does something very un-Socratic. Socrates clarifies, “You mean giving short, direct answers rather than long, indirect questions?” (45). Sometimes it is necessary for Kreeft to use exact lines from the works of the philosophers. When he does this, the statements are in bold so the reader is aware of the difference because it still reads as part of the conversation. However, it adds authority to the book on that it demonstrates Kreeft is basing these conversations on the specific philosophies and writings of the two men. When clarification is needed, questions are asked to expand or explain those statements. Descartes states, “Thus my purpose here is not to teach the method that everyone ought to follow in order to conduct his reason correctly, but merely to show how I have tried to conduct mine.” (63). Socrates asks if he means this and Descartes affirms. Had this statement not been bold, it would have felt like part of the conversation. Sometimes they are complete statements as the previous example but other times Kreeft mixes in individual sentences within an entire statement. This is where the bold is especially necessary. He also uses longer passages directly from the writings of each man at times when paraphrasing does not do the full writing justice. Examples are found in chapter 17 where the passages are often a quarter-page to half page long. In these cases, it is necessary to reproduce the original text as it is important for the reader to review these passages exactly as they were initially written. Here, meaning might be lost or misunderstood if paraphrased. Not only does Kreeft use these conversations for clarification of each philosopher’s ideas, but he also does this to demonstrate similarities between the two. For example, Socrates states, “A similar thing happened to me. My philosophy was too new in method, but not in content. I too sought a stronger, more rational ground for traditional beliefs – and it was misunderstood and feared for it. So I follow you in spirit on your journey –so far, at least.” (71-72). This writing does a few things. It provides so background into the historical context in which the philosophers lived. This is essential in understanding how they addressed their audiences. It demonstrates how the two are similar, but it also shows how they developed in their thoughts and approaches. This type of information is as beneficial to the reader and knowing the philosophies themselves. With this understanding, the next methodology used in this conversation is defense. Sometimes their philosophies were attacked by contemporaries and understanding these contexts help the reader understand why there might be oppositions. This defense type of writing allows Kreeft to point out what some of the opposing sides where and gives each philosopher a chance to refute those questions. For example, Socrates asks, “Incidentally, you must have realized that you were misrepresenting both theology and morality here. For both claim to give us knowledge, and even some; but you praise them for preaching only useful sermons!” (82). Descartes is then able to support his position and again, Keeft uses a mix of responses that explain his philosophy as well as statements directly from Descartes’ own writings. One final approach Kreeft uses an interview style of writing. Sometimes the concepts are more complex and require more in-depth explanation to explain a specific methodology or philosophy. Rather than write extensive dialogues, Kreeft uses a question and answer approach to unpack the complete response into smaller, more manageable pieces. These questions are often short questions that help lead and direct the response so that is specific. For example, Socrates as Descartes the following, “But about scientific knowledge that proceeds strict logical method – do you claim that all such knowledge falls under your principle?” (1340. This question is one is stand of continual short question and answers clarify key points that might otherwise be difficult to convey in general conversation. What Peter Keeft has effectively done in his writing Socrates Meets Descartes is explain through demonstration how Socrates and Descartes set themselves apart from others becoming the founding fathers of Western Philosophy. He describes not just their individual philosophies, but also the cultural and historical context in which they emerged. Kreeft accurately uses fictional discourse to allow each man to “explain” and “defend” his respective philosophies and methodologies in conduct that mimics the style of each man so that they can offer their own voice in the book. Works Cited Keeft, Peter. Socrates Meets Descartes. San Francisco; Ignatius Press, 2007. Print. Read More