DWC201 [PHILO] - On me being materialist.
Descartes' Discourse on (the) Method
So Descartes apparently wrote some portion of the discourse while trapped in a cold room/box for a day. I guess if I were to be put in the same position, I'd be inclined to think of revolutionary ways of thinking also. This was during the Thirty-Years war in Germany and instead of fighting on the front lines after enlisting, Descartes managed to get himself stuck in a box. Details are sketchy and it really doesn't matter too much as long as I get the fact that he did this in a box.
Descartes actually had many works in various fields of study (the majority of his life being in an endless quest for self-taught knowledge). He wrote a book called "Le Monde" (the world) in which he posed various things including pre-newton laws of newton as well as supporting Copernican views against the Papal Earth-Geocentric view. Just three years before the discourse was written, Galileo was put on trial for his apparently heretical views and was placed under house arrest (which isn't too bad I guess because Tuscan homes are lovely. Copernicus was obviously forced to recant these views so it's safe to say that Le Monde was not published in Descartes' lifetime.
When I read the discourse, I think of “The Secret” and that lady. Descartes emphasizes the fact that the discourse is not an instruction on how one should live his life but is actually a “fable” (I like this choice of wording) on Descartes’ personal approach to learning (which was his life) and he tells the reader to use his life as example. In every field of study, the method one uses in learning about it (ie. Approaches to the field) differ and Descartes’ ‘method’ is merely a universal disciplinary method. Whatever he says about not being preachy though, he spends an awful lot of time explaining his intentions and how modest he is and when in fact he spends most of the book explaining how his way is better than others’. I don’t have a famous quote to my name though so I can’t really talk.
The discourse starts kinda shaky. He begins by saying that 'reason', specifically 'Good reason' is equal in all men and that the only way we differ (ie. the reason we make bad decisions) is due to the fact that we choose to use our apparent 'good reason' to go through differing paths (based on experience) and that's basically his explanation for his judgments.
The Philo Prof is quick to point out however that this probably isn't true (I guess it might be true when you consider Descartes' point that it is our paths that differ and people take different things into consideration when making judgments) because Descartes goes on to say that some people have more reason and accept the fact that they are less capable of finding truth than those that can teach them, meaning to say that apparently, reason isn't equal in all men. It's important to note, though, that he stresses the fact that good reason permits humility whereas 'bad' reason would be arrogance or claiming one is more capable than everyone and will apparently go nowhere (in terms of gaining knowledge).
Education
Descartes himself was a pretty interesting chap. I myself think he's pretty elitist in his way of thinking. He talks, in his discourse, about going to some prestigious school in Europe and studying with the Jesuits. He goes on to say that in each field of study (or at least the main fields at that time), he found something he could respect but all in all gave reasons why he'd make a lousy [insert professionals in each field here] and for some he even gave reasons why they pretty much sucked or were unworthy of his time.
Concerning “Letters” (I’m thinking this is literature), he said he had to be gifted to be any good at it. I guess he’s right except for the fact that it’s what he ends up doing anyway.
He loved math and its exactness. He loved the fact that one plus one will always equal two. He (like many other students) however, didn’t know how it would apply to life. I’m still puzzled as to what use differentiation is to me while I’m strolling home from school and I’m faced with a pack of ninjas.
History/Languages/Travel he didn’t love. It was nice, he said, that we are able to get a glimpse of the world outside our own and are able to experience what other cultures accept as right (and give one a mini-lesson in tolerance in that we can’t always assume that our own culture’s right whereas all others are barbaric). Too much travel (or time spent either abroad or in history books) however leads one blind or ignorant, he says, to the goings on of one’s own culture (and one loses touch with their own culture). Travels are therefore less to do with tolerance and more of a way for one to become aware of the possibility of that one’s own culture may not be right. We therefore shouldn’t accept something as true just because society tells us to and that’s a pretty good point.
In Philosophy he found that there is no uniformity to any given issue and that there are so many sides to a single argument. It's clearly impossible to find truth when everyone thinks they're right (and technically, if you can back it up and if it makes sense, then you are right..ish). I personally don't see philosophy as needing one right answer for any given topic. I think Philosophy's less about widely accepted belief and more like a brain gym. I've yet to decide whether Philosophy actually contributes to the progression of humankind. Descartes said that the other sciences just borrowed from Philosophy (and in some ways it kinda does and doesn’t) and that, Philosophy being so wonky in the first place, you’d get wonky-ettes.
Descartes over-simplifies his view of Theology, considering it only as a field concerned with reaching heaven. This is obviously wrong on all levels because, though I'm sure the topic is touched upon by the Thelogical studies, it's not exactly main priority. Reaching Heaven is addressed in church. You don't need to go through a college course for that. He does make a point though (although it's pretty much defunct) in that, since the gates of heaven are just as open to a poor uneducated man as they are for a learned thelogical sholar. It's therefore beyond human understanding and it's impossible to reach truths (without Divine intervention, as in the Bible) so there'd be no point in dwelling on it. He uses this reasoning (in the fact that humans can have no understanding of thelogical matters) to avoid conflicts with his relgion and therefore can remain a firm catholic.
He comes to the conclusion that he was 'above' all other disciplines and held individual thought (as well as individual quest for knowledge) in higher regard. He uses Sparta as an example in that they did not gain their succeses from the everyone pitching in, it was the effort of one man that led to such a direct approach to a way of living with everyone just following. He also uses old cities (some large ones) that were built small and were added to by future architects (and whatnot) and thus creating a mish-mash of stylistacally differing buildings. Descartes is pretty much a big fan of the central plan and downplays the importance of knowledge you get from others in place of knowledge you learn yourself. Later on in the discourse he calls aristotle's later followers "Ivy" in the way they climb trees (namely Aristotle) to get to the top but can’t grow beyond that.
The Method
Descartes’ initial approach to learning was to knock all that he had been taught in his life down and start fresh. He then used the method and applied it to his journey of self-teaching.
The first step of his method is to only accept truths that one can be sure of. It can’t be vague or murky or undefined. You can only be sure of something being rue when it’s defined or ‘bounded’. I’m thinking that means that there should be no possible way that it can be wrong and that it has to be true all the time.
The second step, which I like, is to “Atomize”. In learning, Descartes picked a subject and chopped it up into small pieces (as small as it will go).
The third step, which is a continuation of the second, is to learn the smallest/simplest ‘piece’ first and work your way up to the complex. This works in math and maybe even in learning an instrument. I would know.
The final step concerns records. Descartes, in order to make sure his learning was efficient, posed to make as many complete lists as possible so that there’s nothing missed.
Along with these steps comes rules that he followed in order for them to go much more smoothly. I don’t think these are too important so I think I’ll just skip them (see Wikipedia if necessary).
The Soul
For some reason (and I’m assuming it’s because he wanted to add more beef to discourse), Descartes trails off into philosophical ideas next. I’m not entirely sure where the proof of God or the soul fits in but it’s interesting so I just went along with it.
There’s a lot of God in the chapter but I don’t really follow most of it except for the idea that God added souls at some point during creation and we know that God exists because even though we’re unsure of the accuracy of sensation, we’re always sure of our own existence and that existence came from God.
What confuses me is, according to Descartes (as well as every other ‘Cartesian Dualist’), the soul is a separate entity from the body. “Je pense, donc je suis”(the famous “I think, therefore I am” quote) actually refers to the fact that, since we can never trust sensation (dreams are often vivid/realistic and we smell/see/feel/taste things that aren’t even there at times), the only way we can really be sure we exist is due to the fact that we’re able to think. It’s the very fact that we’re thinking that we know we exist. We can imagine (vividly even) that we don’t have a body. We can imagine having wings. We can imagine being inanimate objects (well I do at least) but we can’t vividly come to think that we’re not thinking because in the act of thinking about not thinking, we are thinking. So that’s apparently Descartes’ first (or at least most famous) truth. It makes sense in a way. He also said that animals are soulless although I can’t remember why.
As a sidenote, if you’re one who considers man to be nothing but consciousness (and the body, as well as everything else around you, are just projections), then you believe in Solipism. The “Evil Demon” is a concept that Descartes posed in another text that says that an evil demon, with infinite power, is projecting everything around us (specifically, our consciousness or soul) and that everything around us is a result of the Evil Demon’s trickery. Bastard.
When you bring Neuro or Psych into this, it gets kinda iffy. I lean towards more the ‘Materialistic’ (Material without Spiritual as I apparently see Spirit as fundamentally Material [the opposing view is Idealistic where there is only a spiritual aspect without the material]) side of things in that all our thoughts, actions, moods, beliefs, intelligence, impulses –all things that I myself would consider to be the conceptual ‘soul’ (ie. What makes us)- all these things are governed by Biopsychosocial influences. “I” am a product of nature via nurture. Where exactly does this concept of “soul” fit in?
Thoughts
So I guess I would somewhat agree that this way of thinking is above Psychology's pay grade. Psychology isn't really concerned too much about existence and I would go on to say that modern Psychology is in danger of trivializing abstract concepts. If we get all scientific then sure, we can consider the human body to be nothing more than a complex chemical reaction and all our thoughts, actions etc. are just a product of smaller reactions. (I wonder, if you put humans in diet coke, would we explode?)
So I was told at the end of class that the soul could possibly be defined as "the ability to self-reflect". I'm pretty sure that means some sort of self-awareness or even the ability to conceptualize at any given moment your presence/existence. Or something like that. By going into the psych stuff (and it was taking into consideration the psych stuff) that led to all this confusion. I guess I'll need to read around and get more viewpoints other than Descartes and Psych 100.
It turns out in the end that Descartes’ main goal in trying to get everyone into his method (or at least something like his method) is for the advancement of humankind towards MEDICINE. (How random is that?). He says some great stuff however about how, with the help of many inquirers, humankind can labor together towards advancing much further than a single individual could do alone. Their advancements however, according to Descartes, will be in non-matching, differently styled advancements. Go figure.
