Descartes and the Modern Turn PDF

Descartes and the Modern Turn Impulses that Influenced the Modern Turn A new boldness of thought that deviated from a Scholastic commitment to authority beginning in the late Middle Ages (1400ish) The emergence of Renaissance Humanism A turn from medieval attitudes toward a focus on the...

Descartes and the Modern Turn Impulses that Influenced the Modern Turn A new boldness of thought that deviated from a Scholastic commitment to authority beginning in the late Middle Ages (1400ish) The emergence of Renaissance Humanism A turn from medieval attitudes toward a focus on the gifts of the human person (eloquence, art, original creativity) An enthusiasm to apply aspects of the the ‘new science’ (a post-Galileo science) toward all aspects and methods of human knowledge “Measure what can be measured and make measurable what cannot be measured." However, we might see the ‘new science’ as itself a turn from Renaissance humanism, stressing science and mathematics over spiritual philosophies A disillusionment with teleology Becoming harder to support a ‘final cause’ when it seemed to conflict with ‘efficient’ and ‘material’ causes (e.g. heliocentrism) The turn to ‘consciousness’ or ‘subjectivity’ (see next slide) “The Cartesian Theatre” A new emphasis on the subjective mind, or consciousness “To be sure, the Greeks talked about their own psychological states… But the idea of a mind as a self-contained inner realm or arena… is distinctively new.” (88) Representationalism: “A philosophical theory of knowledge based on the assertion that the mind perceives only mental images (representations) of material objects outside the mind, not the objects themselves.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)  Idealism This re-orientation toward the mind influenced idealism Idealism had a variety of understandings: “For a few eccentric philosophers, this might be taken to mean that the reality of the world is a function of one’s individual mind, but most idealists had something much grander in mind... Deriving their views from medieval Christianity, for example, some philosophers suggested that there is ultimately only one mind, or one supreme mind, the mind of God. Others suggested that mind pervades everything, both God and everything else. In one sense, this view is plausible: we realize that we know about the things of reality only by way of their effect (direct or indirect) on our minds. But the idea that they exist only because of our minds is a much more radical proposition, and whether our minds are ‘free’ to conceive of things and determine our actions, in the light of modern science, will become one of the most pressing concerns of philosophy.” (88) Representationalism: all things that we claim to know are representations within our ideas Pantheism? Are we all the ideas of a single divine mind? Does everything have some quality of ‘mind’ in it in order to be known and intelligible to minds? Or is everything we see created by our own mind? (Solipsism) Rene Descartes (1596-1650) “Modern metaphysics begins with Descartes’s insistence upon perfect certainty and mathematical deduction.” (89) Importantly, Descartes didn’t consider his work as a break with traditional metaphysics, but rather a continuation of this tradition We might put him in the Humanist tradition (at the heart of the Renaissance) that encouraged original creative expression in philosophy (usually meant to give renewed voice to tradition), but of course too in the ‘new science’ as well. Did Descartes Pursue a Break with Religious Tradition? We often think of modern philosophy as a break with religion (or at least a break with faith in God), but was this the case? (Answer: No) Descartes did not explicitly propose a break from religious tradition: he was a very religious man himself, and believed the world couldn’t be reduced to mere machinery (even if he supposed animals, bodies, and the physical universe were more or less reducible to mechanism) “Descartes begins his studies with a proof of the existence of the world (and one’s knowledge of it) that rests on the presumption of God’s goodness.” (89) Descartes believed the world could be divided into three substances: God; the mind, or self; and physical or material being (which he grouped under the term ‘extension’) (89) The latter two, of course, are dependent upon the first (89)  “Because the world (of minds and matter) depends on God, there is no danger that science should leave us with a Godless, meaningless, mechanical universe. In Aristotelian terms, the ultimate causes in the universe are ‘final’ (or purposive) causes, not ‘efficient’ (or mechanical) causes. The physical world is God’s creation; and though it must be understood by science according to causal mechanisms, it is, nevertheless, within the domain of God’s providence.” (89) Thus if God has any purpose in the world, it cannot be perceived through the means of scientific study Descartes has a deep reverence for God and for the idea that God is not to be reduced to mechanical science. However, Descartes has splintered the moral universe from the physical one. No more might things be called good or beautiful in any true, ontological sense.  Cogito Ergo Sum Radical doubt! – Descartes’ innovation to philosophy (putting it at the same table as mathematics and science) “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” – Descartes Importantly, however, Descartes does not doubt all things. Life is short, there isn’t time. But he can at least doubt the ‘first principles’ that sit at the foot of all he knows… For instance, can he trust his senses? No, no, senses can deceive Am I dreaming or awake? For Descartes, there is no clear way to prove that I am not dreaming (while dreams aren’t as clear as reality, when we are in dreams we can be deceived about this and feel embedded in real life, despite the strangeness) In this case, we might even doubt having a body, for couldn’t I be dreaming its existence? However, we cannot doubt geometry and arithmetic. 2+2 will always equal 4… Or wait, what if God is an evil genius and is actually deceiving us? But if God exists, God would not be a deceiver, he would have  What bedrock am I thus left with? If I can doubt all things, all first principles—senses, wakefulness, body, geometry, God—what am I left with? Is there anything in this world I cannot doubt? Cogito Ergo Sum: I think, therefore I exist In other words: I cannot doubt the doubter But can I know anything beyond myself? What Descartes fastens upon is that he has come to the conclusion of his existence without using his sensory experience. His ultimate conclusion, therefore, is that the mind can know certain truths clearly and distinctly. The key here is his understanding of a ‘clear and distinct idea’. For instance, if he can be certain of his own existence as a clear and distinct idea (that requires no sensory experience) he can also be certain of other clear and distinct ideas. Importantly, he can be sure of God: Descartes’ proof for God works much like Aquinas’ argument from degree: If I have the ability to judge things better or worse, greater or lesser, I must thus have an implicit idea of the perfect. However, how could an imperfect being as I am have this perfect idea? Certainly the idea of perfection couldn’t issue forth from an imperfect being. It must thus be an innate understanding of reason, granted to me by a perfect being. INNATE IDEAS Therefore, the world is not here to deceive me, I can trust it in part (for if God were a deceiver, He would be imperfect). However, I must be scientific and mathematical in my approach so that I don’t deceive myself  Thus, of the three substances that compose the world, God and mind can be reconciled through a means of deductive rationalism. However, can mind and body be reconciled? Cartesian Dualism “It is certain that I (that is, my mind, by which I am what I am) is entirely and truly distinct from my body, and may exist without it.” -Rene Descartes  “Within the domain of nature there are two (sorts of) substances, mind and body. Because these are substances, they are utterly distinct and independent.” (90) Body and physical world = extension (i.e. that which extends into space); mind (that which is not physical) is that which is unextended in space  Meditation VI: “… I certainly do possess a body with which I am very closely conjoined; nevertheless, because, on the one hand, I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in as far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in as far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing, it is certain that I [that is my mind, by which I am what I am] am entirely and truly distinct from my body, and may exist without it.” (325) So here Descartes makes the claim that there is no rationalist way of connecting mind and body…  Meditation VI Cont’d: “But there is nothing which that nature teaches me more expressly than that I have a body which is ill affected when I feel pain, and stands in need of food and drink when I experience the sensations of hunger and thirst, etc. And therefore I ought not to doubt but that there is some truth in these informations… Nature likewise teaches me by these sensations… that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that I am besides so intimately conjoined, and as it were intermixed with it, that my mind and body compose a certain unity. For if this were not the case, I should not feel pain when my body is hurt, seeing that I am merely a thinking thing, but should perceive the wound by the understanding alone, just as a pilot perceives by sight when any part of his vessel is damaged.” (325) Conclusions We Can Draw Two important points here: First, it is significant to remember that Descartes doesn’t ultimately propose a split between mind and body. On the contrary, he ultimately proposes a ‘certain unity’ between them. However, second, it is significant to note that he doesn’t really propose this in mathematically or scientifically certain terms. ‘Nature teaches me by these sensations…’ of some underlying unity between mind and body. Ultimately this question remains scientifically unexplained. (Descartes proposed that there was a mind-body connection in the pineal gland, but of course there was no certainty to this)  In other words, Descartes doesn’t philosophically answer the question. Neither science, mathematics, nor a strict rationalism get him an answer to the mind- body problem. Some philosophers like Spinoza and Leibniz (following Descartes) saw this as a legitimate and necessary gap that had to be taken into serious philosophical consideration: Just how do two such different substances interact? Spinoza’s Attempt to Resolve Mind-Body Problem Spinoza, for his part, answers with an idealist notion proposing that there is only one substance in reality (not three) and that this substance is God. We are all a part of God, ideas in his mind. In this way, we don’t ultimately have to explain the interaction of two disparate substances like body and mind (material and immaterial) in the world, for all is easily explained as a single substance Problem: But where does this leave free-will?  But the best understanding of the mind-body problem, in terms of any sort of resolution, might come from looking into Descartes himself in Meditation VI: To repeat: ““But there is nothing which that nature teaches me more expressly than that I have a body which is ill affected when I feel pain, and stands in need of food and drink when I experience the sensations of hunger and thirst, etc. And therefore I ought not to doubt but that there is some truth in these informations… Nature likewise teaches me by these sensations… that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that I am besides so intimately conjoined, and as it were intermixed with it, that my mind and body compose a certain unity.” In other words, what Descartes offers us here (though unintentionally perhaps) is an experience which ought to be taken as the primary datum of this situation: the body and the mind are unified in Advantage of this dualism: “The science of mind and the science of bodies do not and cannot contradict one another.” They are separate fields, with sciences of their own. The mind is free and not determined by body; it exists in its own substantial sphere. “Bodies may be wholly constrained by the laws of physics, but minds are free.” (90) Disadvantage: What does the mind now have to do with the body? Are they connected arbitrarily? Where are they connected? (Why must we even ask these questions and just let them be separate? Answer: philosophy abhors a dualism! If we can’t make rational sense of it, then it may not be the best model in which to understand the world and our relation to it!)