Socrates Meets Descartes - Book Report/Review Example

?Socrates Meets Descartes – book review Philosophy refers to the study of the basic problem of life pertaining to a wide range of arenas such as religion, education etc. While Socrates is known as the Father of Philosophy, Rene Descartes is referred as the father of modern philosophy. The book Socrates meets Descartes portrays the interaction between Socrates and Descartes through dialogues which actually symbolize the meeting of the historical account of basic philosophical ideas with the account of Western culture. Descartes here is the interviewee of Socrates and their discourse is quite reflective with deep insights. The work is meant basically for educational purposes and helps a layman in philosophy understand its different branches. The book brings out the metaphysical loopholes embedded in the teachings of Descartes especially with respect to the existence of God. The interesting part here is that despite their philosophies and the persons discussed here are real the conversation is hypothetical. Both have made a huge difference to the branch of philosophy. Both these personalities share some similarities and differences. Each of them has been originators in their fields. They were revolutionaries with no forerunners. Compared to the other philosophers from their streams, the approach and questions raised by Socrates have made the previous philosophers rethink and adopt alter their thoughts. When one thinks of Descartes one finds a true revolutionary who considers that the past does not exist and therefore begins his thoughts all anew. Both the philosophers have made a deep mark in others who have studied this stream. Both of them initiated their thoughts by questioning and raising doubts about every issue. They queried about every assumption and they did not assume anything beforehand and approached without any bias or prejudice. They have moved away from tradition and concentrated more on experience and individual thoughts. Both of them began by trying to know the self. While Descartes said, “know your existence as an individual” (Kreeft, 12), Socrates said, “know thyself”. Descartes attempted to surpass the skepticism of most of the well known contemporary thinkers like Montaigne. According to him the only absolute certainty to begin a new philosophy is “I think, therefore I am”. He had rivals like Augustine who preceded him by twelve years and Pascal, his contemporary. They both established connection between the soul and the self and not between the self and the body. They were dualists believing that reality has two components – matter and the spirit. They differ in the way they looked at reasoning. Descartes asked for a reason to trust reasoning itself while Socrates tried to question every claim. While Socrates asked for some innovations keeping the old components intact along with reasoning based arguments, Descartes further made reasoning narrower from “wisdom” to “science” and philosophical reasoning to scientific one. Both were guided by some kind of divine interventions in their course of action but in different ways. Both were unique in their own ways but while Socrates was the founder of classical worldview, Descartes found scientific thoughts. Hence the discourse between the two great philosophers is the interaction between the culture of the west and the history of consciousness. The first chapter ‘The Meeting’ takes the readers to a situation where both Descartes and Socrates meet after their death in heaven. Descartes is riding a horse which is allowed to fly before him. Descartes, like his usual habit of doubting everything else in the Universe, also doubts Socrates’ existence but Socrates retorts asking him whether he doubts his own existence to which Descartes replies, “Actually I did doubt my own existence and everything else as well. Universal doubt was the first step of the method I taught” (Kreeft, 20). Sometime later the instance of his book Discourse on Method discussed here Socrates would move on to test his knowledge and cross examine him. One may perceive here that an individual needs to clarify and explain himself before moving on to be a part of heaven. The trial for Descartes here is not like one suffers in hell but a pleasant and intellectual one which also serves as a learning process for both Descartes and the readers of the book. Socrates has been sent by his Higher Authority to question Descartes. Here Socrates is also playing the role of God himself. The author declares through Socrates’ words that he is already in heaven while Descartes would require passing the test before being a part of the same. The first component of his teaching method which is brought up here is skepticism. Descartes claims that he devised a way to overcome unbearable doubtfulness and form the platform for science. The author skillfully crafts simple questions in such a manner that they might lead to an analysis of the works and thoughts of Descartes. For instance, when Descartes asks “there are books in Heaven?” (Kreeft, 21) Socrates replies with the answer “Did I say this was Heaven? I though you made no assumptions” (Kreeft, 21). However Descartes seems to be comfortable with the cross examination and is pleasant to have Socrates as his examiner in the purgatory. Socrates justifies his need to cross examine Descartes’ book by saying, “Because your book revolutionized philosophy, and that was the enterprise I had the good fortune to begin, or rather to be used as a divine instrument to help others to begin” (Kreeft, 24). Before raising this point Socrates makes it clear that the place was heaven for him already and Descartes was the one who had to be tested. This indicates that Socrates’ vision and thinking had already been established over centuries and appreciated by other philosophers while Descartes’ methods have raised many questions. Descartes replies him stating the reasons – “the decline of philosophy and the rise of all the other sciences” (Kreeft, 24). He explains that he tried to establish scientific method and began by refuting skepticism. He categorized the philosophical stream of study into three categories – Scholastics which availed traditional methods and the nature mystics while the third option adopted by his contemporary Montaigne was skepticism. Descartes moves on to praise the progress that science was making especially during the time he was born. Socrates retorts back saying that he made one assumption about the fact that philosophy is a science. Descartes explains that Philosophy is actually a science. However as he mentions about his book, he says that philosophy is the only branch where unlike the other sciences; there was no scientific method to explain the origin or things or events. Yet, he later contradicts saying that Philosophy can be called a science as it provides reason and justification logically. Descartes therefore has tried to test the assumption that scientific method could add life to the stream of philosophy. Socrates had built his wisdom by questioning the self. Hence he believed that satisfaction cannot open the door to wisdom which has no end. Self satisfaction is therefore recklessness to him. Descartes believes that with equal reasoning every man would be happy with what ever reasoning they possessed along with their experiences. Socrates, the wisest of all these common men now becomes less wise than the others. This is emphasized further by the statement “It is not likely that anyone is mistaken about this fact” (Kreeft, 39). Descartes talks of democratizing reason by claiming all men have equal reason yet as Socrates points out that being treated as the most brilliance of his time, he could make such a brilliant observation. Descartes explain modestly that he never claimed to possess any better wit than other men. Socrates points out the Descartes could not have forgotten the dead because they represent tradition. In that respect off course Socrates would also be included in the same sphere and if Descartes had similar wit as Socrates then there is no revolution here at all. Such puns and gaps are created by the author through this two-man’s conversation and each of them are explained by the author who has raised these questions himself giving Socrates a superior position but allowing Descartes the scope to prove himself to the Father of Philosophy. Socrates follows a pattern of questions and then questioning the answer of his interviewee just as he did in case of his students like Plato. Socrates believes that one needs to build reasons on the basis of the images and shadows he observes around him. This is more like the questioning nature of a child. Descartes raises a doubt about the differentiation between man and animals since the latter also formed their knowledge from all they observe around them. Socrates says that men by definition were reasonable or “Rational” animals. He states certain attributes which distinguish between the two. Men are capable of “moral conscience, the uncritical awareness of beauty and ugliness; and the ability to read human hearts and faces intuitively…Animals cannot do any of these things” (Kreeft, 55). Animals can read only the immediate appearances and not the sensory ones which appear to human reasons. Men who questions these appearances therefore learn form them while animals simply react to them. When a man moves around to find the origin of a shadow it implies that he is questioning the same. They begin to wonder and therefore turn into philosophers. These men are also the seekers of truth or knowledge unlike animals. Reason is present in all the four levels – the first one comprise of images, second comprise of the things which bring forth these images (reason is involved when a person questions the origin of the shadow and reaches the things causing the same, the third level which consists of the principles that have the capacity to explain things. the actual mathematics and logic is involved in this stage to explain things. Socrates points out Descartes’ role in this context of explaining Plato’s dividing line. It is this line between the third and the second level which is explained by Descartes. Gradually as the discussion about the book of Descartes progresses Socrates wants to know why he wrote the book if he believe all men had equal reasons and Descartes says that he did not try to preach anything but just shared his experience of testing things in the hope that some day some person might like to follow the same. Yet, science is about universal truths and objectives results despite the fact that the quest for the knowledge is a personal search. But Descartes did not want his ideas to get killed before being published and hence he adopted some diplomacy in the book to escape the censor’s eye. He believed that wise people like Socrates would be able to decipher – “I planted just enough clues in my book so that foxes like you would find them, but dogs like the censors would not”. The discussion at this point bring sup the death of Socrates in order to kill ideas and in the words of Socrates as presented in the book, “This was your solution to the dilemma: either publish these radically new thoughts and be persecuted by the fools who try to kill ideas by killing people – or else withhold them from the human race, withhold the way these very fools can be tamed by reason and perhaps even the way by which all wars of ideas can cease” (Kreeft, 69). Descartes explains the reason behind the conflict of opinions. It lies in the variety in methods or approaches taken and if these differences in methods are taken away the differences in opinion shall vanish too. Descartes summarizes the common observations made by both Socrates and Descartes – “the importance of knowledge for…moral life; the importance of science for knowledge; and the importance of method for science” (Kreeft, 84) Socrates at this stage is not sure of the importance of science for philosophy. Descartes also claims that scientific approach can end the disagreements. This goes in tune with Socrates’ idea of people being tamed by reason. However with an inquisitive nature all proven truths might be questioned but Descartes says that the truth will become an uncertainty only to the individual who would question the same. Descartes’ claim about scientific method to the supreme one could be tested in two ways – first, his arguments could be rationally critiqued and second, they can be proven through historical experience. Socrates therefore explains the motive behind Descartes work and explains his approach for the readers to understand the way the latter tried to revolutionize philosophy. Descartes begins from traditions and then comes to his own experiences sought by traveling and lastly, tries to know himself. He uses the words of Descartes as written in the book to back up his claim: “As soon as age permitted me to escape the tutelage of my teachers…resolving to search for no other knowledge than what I could find within myself, or in the great book of the world, I spent the rest of my youth in traveling….I made up my mind one day to study myself (Kreeft, 97). The quality of the book enhances further by the frequent puns and the witty approach used by Socrates. The book is therefore an explanation sought form Descartes for his books especially Meditations and Discourse on Method. One intelligent pun of Socrates is revealed when Descartes claims that the “dogs” chewed the bones of Socrates while they could not chew his. Hence Socrates refers to his next passage for scrutiny as “the bone”. With time one finds that Descartes and Socrates agree on some points while Descartes corrects some areas of self contradictions as Socrates questions them. Thus the dialogues exchanged between Socrates and Descartes is revealing, interesting to read and simple to understand certain basic concepts. Descartes establishes the association between knowledge and the origin of the same through the explanation of cause and effect relationship that can be established by science. In the beginning, it is apparent that Socrates plays the role of a representative of God interrogating His subject. Descartes has defined God to be the perfect thing or perfection itself in his works and therefore ironically the author has begun with the assumption that Socrates knows it all and hence has been sent by God which nearly claims his perfection. The works of Descartes are questioned even today and some of them have been resolved through the discourse between the two great men of Philosophy. The skill of the author lie sin the way he has used the thoughts and approaches of both the thinkers, felt them and then applied them to show the readers the hidden truths between the lines of what Descartes wrote in the light of Socrates’ judgments. He provokes his readers to question and then seek the answers between the lines and dialogues exchanged between the two philosophers. The book discusses historical truths and lessons of other philosophers while simultaneously differentiating them from the thoughts of the two thinkers discussed here. It is clear that Descartes has derived his work form traditions before bringing about the revolutionized thoughts and hence the cause effect relation or the origin of an event can be explained by the traditions though Descartes bring sin new dishes to serve our taste buds. This also explains his own saying that the differences exist because of differences in methods adopted and the analysis of Socrates that reason tames the common man. Work Cited Kreeft, Peter. Socrates Meets Descartes, Ignatius Press, 2007 Read More