The Logic of Rene Descartes - Coursework Example

The Logic of Descartes Rene Descartes was a French philosopher, mathematician and scientist who lived between 1596 and 1650. His writings mark the dividing line between the empiricist school of thought and the rationalist school of thought. “Before his time, philosophy had been dominated by the method of Scholasticism, which was entirely based on comparing and contrasting the views of recognized authorities” (Vincent 2003). A great deal of this earlier thought was based on information gleaned from the senses. Descartes felt the only way to obtain true knowledge was to rely solely upon human reason while ignoring the senses. Descartes wrote several books regarding the nature of existence and knowledge, providing us with plenty of material to study and has had tremendous influence on those who have come after him. These books are typically divided into segments Descartes labels meditations. In these meditations, Descartes reflects upon the nature of the individual and determines that he does indeed exist as both a physical and a metaphysical being through a detailed consideration of the various elements that contribute to his awareness. Through statements such as ‘I am not lodged in my body like a pilot in a vessel’ and ‘I am not that set of limbs called the human body’, Descartes attempts to bridge the difference between the new sciences and the sensory perceptions of the old philosophy, introducing in the process a new way of thinking about thinking. In Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy (1989), Descartes states emphatically ‘I think, therefore I am.’ This simple-sounding statement is the result of a discourse in which Descartes calls into question all of the assumptions he’s come to know as a result of the philosophical thought of his day. To seek a higher version of the truth, Descartes felt it was necessary to question every assumption that had even the shadow of a doubt. Through this questioning process, he demonstrates how thought, not observation or the senses, is really the right foundation for knowledge. “When I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams” (Descartes, 2001). The first issue to be overcome was the concept that knowledge defined by a “clear and distinct perception” as being clear of sensation is foiled by its own dependence on the senses within the definition. Descartes argues that in order to fool a mind, a mind must first exist, indicating that the senses are not necessary to the development of a thinking being, so we must be something more than the physical material we are made of, something more than ‘the set of limbs.’ In the process of breaking down all of his perceptions to determine the very basic, deepest thought that is not based on the senses, Descartes admits that there may be some way in which all of his senses could be fooled all of the time into thinking he exists; this in itself proves his existence. “But there is I know not what being, who is possessed at once of the highest power and the deepest cunning, who is constantly employing all his ingenuity in deceiving me. Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something” (Descartes, 1989). Meditation III builds off of Descartes’ earlier idea that he exists because he is capable of thinking – “I think, therefore I am.” Assuming that what he is able to perceive as distinct must be true, he strives to erase his mind of all information that has been gained through his five senses to arrive at what he knows deep within himself. “In this item of first knowledge, there is simply a clear and distinct perception of what I am asserting; this would not be enough to make me certain of the truth of the matter if it could ever turn out that something which I perceived with such clarity and distinctness was false. So I now seem to be able to lay it down as a general rule that whatever I perceived very clearly and distinctly is true” (Descartes, 1637). One of the first things that he perceived in this line of thought was that he had a basic idea of the existence of God or some form of higher intelligence. Since that idea had to have had a cause of some kind, because he had already proven that nothing comes from nothing, Descartes reasoned that this cause must have at least as much reality as the idea itself. At the same time, since he did not consider himself infinitely perfect, Descartes reasoned he could not have been the cause of this idea, so there must be an outside cause that is infinitely perfect – in other words, God must exist. “Descartes assumes that we have an idea of God as an actually infinite being, not just a being that is as great as we can imagine by extending the finite perfections of a human being. For this reason, it is impossible for us to have constructed our idea of God through an extension of the idea we have of ourselves or any other finite creature” (Rutherford, 2006). Descartes’ second argument to prove God’s existence, and through this proof to illustrate that he is more than the body in which he is housed, lies in his ability to conceive of something perfect despite his own fallibilities. This second argument begins with the knowledge that he exists – again, “I think, therefore I am.” This existence must have a cause of some kind, which Descartes determines to be one of five possibilities. The first is that his existence stems from himself, but if he had created himself, he would have made himself perfect. Since he is not perfect, he could not have made himself. The second possibility is that he is merely a continuation of something that has always existed. However, scientific studies have shown, even in Descartes’ time, that continued existence does not necessarily follow from present existence, such as in the case of death. The physical explanation is that his parents were the cause of his existence, but this line of reasoning was determined to lead to an infinite regress and therefore unproductive to follow. If he were made by something that was less perfect than God, as in the fourth possibility, Descartes would still be left searching for the concept of something supreme, which something less perfect than God would not provide. Having eliminated all but one of the five possibilities, Descartes is able to declare with confidence that God exists as he is the only being that meets all of the necessary requirements that have been established. “I know that I could not exist with my present nature – that is, I could not exist with the idea of God in me – unless there was really a God. This must be the very God whose idea is in me, the thing having all of the perfections that I can’t fully comprehend but can somehow reach with thought, who clearly cannot have any defects. From this it’s obvious He can’t deceive – for, as the natural light reveals, fraud and deception arise from defect” (Descartes, 1637). Having proved that God exists to his own satisfaction as well as the concept that he himself must exist on a higher level than the simple input of his senses, Descartes is nevertheless aware that his senses play a large role in his conception of the world, hence, ‘I am not lodged in my body like a pilot in a vessel’. This can be seen as a bridging of the old with the new. “He developed a dualistic system in which he distinguished radically between mind, the essence of which is thinking, and matter, the essence of which is extension in three dimensions. Descartes’ metaphysical system is intuitionist, derived by reason from innate ideas, but his physics and physiology, based on sensory knowledge, are mechanistic and empiricist” (Watson 2002). Some knowledge of Descartes’ background as a mathematician helps to explain his means of reconciling the mind’s dependence on yet independence from the sensations of the body. Descartes was known as a mathematician before he ever became known as a philosopher. It has been argued that a large portion of Descartes’ enlisted life was spent in Breda, which functioned as a military academy for young noblemen, providing him with further opportunity to pursue his applied mathematical interests. “Though there are reasons for thinking that he may have been a soldier, the majority of biographers argue that it is more likely that his duties were oriented more towards education or engineering” (Smith 2003). Through this experience, Descartes was able to innovate within the field in which he excelled. “Like Galileo combining physics and mathematics, [Descartes] combined two things that had previously been apart, arithmetic and geometry. The modern world would not be the same without graphs of equations. … So Descartes belongs to this puzzling, mathematical side of science, not to the side concerned with experience” (Ross 1998). Unlike other scientists of his time, Descartes’ passion for mathematics was presumably born of his conviction that it was the “one field where absolute certainty could be found. He also saw it as a means for achieving greater progress in both science and philosophy” (Cline 2006). With his ability to see form and function as two sides of the same coin as well as understand the necessary building blocks of nature, it should be expected that he was not blind to the interaction that occurred between the body and the mind, recognizing that ‘I am not lodged in my body like a pilot in a vessel’ but was instead intricately linked and yet separate. It is precisely because of this close connection between the mind and the body, Descartes argued, that it was so difficult to uncover the basic truths he was seeking. Realizing that the intimate link between senses and thought had previously been overlooked in philosophers’ search for the greater truths, Descartes insisted it was necessary to try, if possible, to transcend the impressions of the senses for a moment at least, in order to see the world in a more truthful light. Instead of simply accepting the methods he’d been taught, Descartes believed “that all natural science must be capable of being unified under mathematics, and that the world must be of such a nature as to admit of mathematical treatment” (Vincent 2003). Rather than working with thought as a separate entity divided from other disciplines such as math and the ‘natural philosophy’ that was the science of the day, Descartes worked instead to bring science together with philosophy. “Unsatisfied with scholastic philosophy and troubled by skepticism of the sort expounded by Montaigne, Descartes soon conceived a comprehensive plan for applying mathematical methods in order to achieve perfect certainty in human knowledge” (Kemerling 2002). Rather than dismissing the mind and body connection, Descartes purposefully confronts the impressions of the senses as a means of finding the inner greater truths, his mind is intrinsically linked with the sensations of the body, but it is also capable of assessing those impressions that are created by these sensations and therefore discern which are influenced by them and which are fundamental elements of his inner being, having been formed without benefit of external sensation. “Therefore Descartes proposes a method of thought incorporating the rigor of mathematics but based on intuitive truths about what is real, basic knowledge which could not be wrong (like the axioms of geometry). He calls into question everything that he thinks he has learned through his senses but rests his whole system on the one truth that he cannot doubt, namely, the reality of his own mind and the radical difference between the mental and the physical aspects of the world” (Brians 1998). The process by which Descartes arrived at his conclusions and the branches of thought that arose from these discussions have proved to be the foundation upon which most modern philosophical commentary has been focused. “The philosophy of Descartes had a profound impact on the philosophers and theologians of his day” (Woolston 2004). Several of the major thinkers of his day either took pains to support Descartes’ views or to reject them and prove them false. From these discussions came the branches of thought regarding what made up the human spirit and just how was this connected with the human body. “Descartes’ influence in philosophy cannot be underestimated. The epistemic foundation, presuppositionless systems, the mind/body problem, and the subject/object relationship are issues that haunt philosophy to the present day. In one fell swoop, Descartes split apart you and the external world. Much of later philosophy is spent trying to get these two together somehow” (Davis 1997). In the years that followed, the Empiricists worked to deny any kind of nonmaterial realm “and they denied Descartes’ assertion that there is a distinct substance existing independently from the senses or from the physical world. The Materialists argued that the universe is nothing more than matter in motion moving through space. They maintained that the mind is nothing more than a process of physical phenomena just as breathing and defecating are natural processes, and that there is no warrant for asserting the ‘soul itself’ as existing independently in some realm” (Woolston 2004). Regardless of whether they agree or disagree with Descartes’ original thoughts, processes and premises, though, the fact remains that it is Descartes and the realm of ideas he brought forward that they are basing their arguments upon. Although his ideas have successfully split the world of philosophy into several different parts, all arguing differing levels of mind/body involvement, now growing so far as to involve the physical sciences as more and more information about the workings of the human body and the brain are discovered, Descartes can nevertheless be seen to be bridging the gap between the old philosophy and the new in the concepts he brought forward. He does not refute the idea that the sensations of the body have a strong impact upon the mind. The degree to which he went to try to achieve a view of the truth free of such impressions is evidence enough that he did not feel the soul was a disembodied ghostly entity existing within some defined space of the brain and from where the rest of the body was controlled, machine-like and ordered. However, he also felt that mathematics, which was capable of explaining so many natural phenomena that had previously been considered a mystery, should also be applicable in discovering the fundamental truths regarding how we should define ourselves and our existence. Therefore, in pursuing a definition of the truth, Descartes came around full circle. From denying the existence of everything that had the shadow of a doubt, including everything known through the senses and seemingly intuitively, he argued his way through the idea that thought completely separated from sense was the necessary basis for knowledge and that the only correct thought was thought that carried with it the sense that it was clear and distinct. Through the meditations included in “Meditations on First Philosophy,” Descartes presents his logical sequence leading to the idea that since God exists, all knowledge must come from him and therefore, whether we are dreaming or awake, our perceptions of our reality must be real. Our body must inform our mind in an intimate link that cannot be severed, yet our mind is capable of conducting abstract thought and reaching conclusions independent of the sensations we experience. At the same time, the thoughts we have regarding the nature of reality on an internal level can manifest themselves externally as we begin to sensitize ourselves to that impression. It’s a complicated circle that contains no definite points of departure or intersection that has remained the basis of philosophic thought for generations. References Brians, P. (December 18, 1998). “Rene Descartes: Discourse on Method.” Department of English, University of Washington. Cline, A. (2006). “Rene Descartes Biography: Biographical Profile of Rene Descartes.” About Agnosticism / Atheism. About.com. Retrieved April 28, 2011 from < http://atheism.about.com/od/philosopherbiographies/p/Descartes.htm> Davis, W. (1997). The Rene Descartes Project. Covenant College. Retrieved April 28, 2011 from Descartes, Rene. (1989). Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. John Veitch. New York: Prometheus Books. Descartes, R. (2001). Discourse on Method. Vol. XXXIV, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. Kemerling, G. (August 7, 2002). “Rene Descartes (1596-1650).” Philosophy Pages. Retrieved April 28, 2011 from < http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/desc.htm> Ross, K.L. (1998). “Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and the Meditations on First Philosophy.” The Beginning of Modern Science. The Proceedings of the Fresian School (4th Ed.). Retrieved April 28, 2011 from Rutherford, Donald. (May 15, 2006). “Descartes – Meditation III.” University of California – San Diego. Smith, K. (March 11, 2003). “Descartes’ Life and Works.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Retrieved April 28, 2011 from . Vincent, J. (2003). “Rene Descartes: 1596-1650.” Island of Freedom. Retrieved April 28, 2011 from < http://www.island-of-freedom.com/DESCARTE.HTM> Watson, R. (2002). “Rene Descartes: 1596-1650.” The Encyclopedia Britannica. Scottsdale, AR: Pearson Software. Woolston, C.S. (November 21, 2004). “Rene Descartes: Mind vs. Body.” Dynamic Deism. Retrieved April 28, 2011 from Read More