Decartes is known as one of the great thinkers of his time. But Decartes’ time is long over, and we live in a digital age. His way of thinking progressed Philosophy, and that’s great, but his argument is full of holes. This text belongs in a library and should not be taken seriously. His thinking is all over the place and he tends to contradict himself. In one mediation he talks about how he wants to disconnect himself and his thoughts from all preconceptions, yet he talks about how God is all good and perfect. This perception of God is a preconception that he got from the church. How does he know that God is not an evil genius?
Descartes uses many false pretenses. He makes many assumptions which lead to bad arguments. His whole notion of “clear and distinct” is a really blurry line, yet it is one of the central arguments. He has no idea about what is clear and distinct. Back then it was clear that the earth revolves around the sun and the world was flat. Descartes does not have the advantage of science, and his attempts to create a framework for science are very shady.
He believes that humans are incapable of creating a notion of God, and that God must exist because he’s the only one that is able to create a notion of himself. This is clearly circular reasoning, and I believe that he underestimates the power of imagination.
The only good argument that I got out of Decartes is “I think therefore I am.” When those words were said, it was a mildstone in the history of man. For the first time, humans began to think in a more progressive way. Descartes was one of the first great thinkers, that does not mean he was exactly right though.
Victoria Trieu | 14-Sep-06 at 11:52 pm | Permalink
I did not like his “clear and distinct” argument at all, but after talking about it with another person I came to see that although it sounds absurd, ridiculous, and random, Descartes’ “clear and distinct” argument sounds pretty feasible. This is what I think. You have to dismiss ideas like the world being flat and aliens when you are using this “clear and distinct” approach. Those are things that you learn about and believe yourself. God is something different. The idea of God is more like this table in front of me. It is so clear and distinct in my mind that it is a table, it is real, and it is in front of me. Where did I get the idea that this table is real? I don’t know. It just came to me. It’s the way it is. It was just so clear and distinct in my mind. This is just a little bit of how I see this new clear and distinct theory, and there’s much more to it. It took some warming up for me, but I at least understand it more now. I think my problem was that I didn’t really think about what was clear and distinct to me. I just thought it meant Descartes made it up and believed it, but that’s not true.
And also, Frank, I don’t think that Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” statement is that great. I like the fact that thought exists. I believe that, but who is “I”. Why don’t you doubt that “I” exists? Descartes just kind of pulled that out of the air too, don’t you think? I think that this is just clear and distinct to you that you exists as this being that thinks and not something else.
Greg Frazier | 15-Sep-06 at 12:26 am | Permalink
I think you missed the point Daniel and Victoria made, too. The idea that God is not preconcieved comes from the fact that certain knowledge comes from perception, and therefore can be doubted. However, certain ideas, such as perfection, infinity, and circle, cannot be perceived in the physical world, unless that is, you can provide something in the physical world that is perfect, infinite, or perfectly circular.
This is where Descartes gets his argument for God from. If he has never perceived perfection and something infinite, and these are both atributes of Descartes’ God, then these ideas must have been put in his mind by his God.
Also, I don’t believe there have been any advances since Descartes’ time that would prove him wrong. (and the Earth was round by the time he was born). True, his arguments are full of fallacies, but that has nothing to do with if Descartes used a digital computer to type up his meditations. I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe there is any substantial data that proves that every thought in the mind corresponds to a synapse in the brain firing. If there has been, I’d love to read an article about it.
Furthermore, Descartes was a scientist that provided the footwork for Newton to create the Calculus, and he also created the Cartesian coordinate system, among other things. If you don’t like his philosophy, you can at least respect his scientific accomplishments.
Renee Ferron | 17-Sep-06 at 12:34 pm | Permalink
To an extent, i see where your arguement is coming from, Frank-
i definitely have a somewhat skeptical view of philosophy and how well these arguements actually correlate to today’s world
but as Greg said- Descartes’ ideas at least set the groundwork for a lot of the following ideas that affect todays ideas of science, religion, behavior, etc…
so at the very least, he started some good patterns of thought- even if his actual arguements didn’t stand up on their own
Kyle Padera | 17-Sep-06 at 4:08 pm | Permalink
I agree with Frank on a note here that can be attributed to all fields of study. Descartes has accomplished a lot of wonderful things for the field of philosophy and that is great, but his arguments are not the most sound. Freud did the same for psychology. He was the first to say some crazy things and they were insanely wrong, like his drive research, but when you ask anyone about psychology they will probably say something about Freud. In history we are handicapped the same way by processes of heroificiation. Case in point, Christopher Colombus. There needs to be a fine line drawn between who the person is and what they do for their respective fields, and that actual worth of what they do.
Frank Nunez | 17-Sep-06 at 5:20 pm | Permalink
[… Descartes was a scientist that provided the footwork for Newton to create the Calculus, and he also created the Cartesian coordinate system, among other things. If you don’t like his philosophy, you can at least respect his scientific accomplishments]
He was a scientist, but I would not give him so much credit towards providing a footwork for Newton. Remember that even the church rejected his proof. Besides, there are people out there who have taught themselves calculus without any contact from the scientific world. I surley wouldn’t put Descartes on the same level of genious as Newton.
Greg Frazier | 17-Sep-06 at 6:04 pm | Permalink
Even if wasn’t on the same level of genius as Newton, you surely have to give him some credit for being the catylist for new thinking. This can be shown in the fact that most of modern philosophy is a reaction to Decartes’ mediations and other works, and also in the fact that he is the “Father of Modern Mathematics.”
And I didn’t say he provided a footwork for all of Newton’s work, just the development of the calculus.
Daniel Fahey | 17-Sep-06 at 7:43 pm | Permalink
Woah, been missing a good discussion here. First, Frank, your thoughts are all fine and good and valid now. But you’ve got to realize that Descartes had no concept of how far we’ve gone in science today when he was doing his reasoning, so I feel it’s a bit unfair to write him off through those reasons. Moving on to the God argument. Believe in God all you want or don’t, but Descartes’ argument makes perfect sense to me. I think it would be much clearer if we all tried to look at it from Descartes’ point of view. For him the ideas of infinity etc. come from God, see Greg’s comment above. Descartes’ belief in God allows him to attribute his understanding of certain things to God. Obviously if you don’t believe in God you wouldn’t agree, but if you do believe, you might have a better understanding of the line of reasoning. I’m not saying who’s wrong or right here, I just thing either way it’d be helpful to look at it how you think Descartes looked at it.
Nkone Adu Dapaah | 18-Sep-06 at 7:15 pm | Permalink
This is a really debatable topic and it neither has the wrong nor right answer. it is about how you look at it and the way you understand it. some people strongly agree with descartes and others do not, and those who do not go and research on their own and they also come up with thier own conclusions. and i think that is how it will be, we all cannot come to an agreement but i think credits should definitely be given to descartes for bringing up his ideas. that is the reason why we get to read his ideas and have our own conclusion about them.
Patrick Morrissey | 18-Sep-06 at 10:43 pm | Permalink
We must look at Descartes and point out what he has taught us. Personally, I have learned about reason and its importance through the examples of the wax and chiligon. I think we have learned more about the individuality of the mind and its extraordinary capability. Descartes revolutionized the philosophy world, and, as we discussed in class, most modern philosophy is a reaction to Descartes. Without Descartes, it would be difficult to comprehend.
Kristina Hughes | 26-Sep-06 at 9:49 am | Permalink
I don’t think it’s accurate to say Descartes is outdated with all the well respected philosophers, writers, etc. that have branched off of his work. For instance Emerson, who also has his own succesors, essentially branched from Descartes in some of his most famous arguments. Sure, some of Descartes’ arguments are not sound; but the foundation Descartes laid for future philosophers is utilized in present day thinking.
Patrick Morrissey | 30-Sep-06 at 6:22 pm | Permalink
Kristina,
I think you made a really good point. As I said earlier I think that Descartes is very revolutionary, yet practical to understand in today’s society. I think believe that a lot of philosophy is a reaction to what other people think and believe, and without the culmination of knowledge thoughts would not be articulated. A comparison that I would make would relate Descartes and the Constitution. Even though the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, it is the backbone of our society.
Adam Warren | 03-Oct-06 at 4:42 pm | Permalink
The fact that you take such a strong stand against people reading Descartes really bothers me. I am a strong believer in learning your roots. It’s not always beneficial to only read the most recent works, especially in philosophy. In philosophy, it seems to me that reading as much as possible on the subject is the best way to learn and establish your own philosophical beliefs. This work, while filled with holes that I fully realize was a good book to get under our belts as a young philosophy class. Philosophy takes on an added dimension if you are able to know the standpoint that you take on as well as the evolution of the theory behind it. Also, you are likely to run into a run of the mill Cartesian “philosopher” who pretends to be a scholar on the subject after a high school class. This way you are better able to argue your point, and being able to defend your beliefs is valuable.
Danielle Bracken | 12-Oct-06 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
I agree with Adam in that it is important to “learn your roots” and hear about all the ideas that make up an issue, even if some are not as strong as others. Kyle mentioned how Descartes and Freud were similar in that they both had controversial ideas that nowadays with the advancement of science and technology, we have found they aren’t very strong or correct anymore. However, without these people’s ideas to lay the foundation, who knows where or when we might have began learning about these topics. Both people’s arguments may not be strong, but they started something that led to the knowledge we have today, and without their arguments we may never have gotten to where we are on those issues.