Thursday, February 5, 2009
From 2/4: Bringing back the World
By the end of the Meditations, Descartes fully restores the world which he originally brought into doubt. But what sort of world is this? It's one where mathematics is now the language of nature, where our senses are only to be trusted if they provide clear and distinct ideas, and where we are essentially our minds -- minds which are somehow "commingled" with our bodies. So what do we make of this Cartesian world? Has he adequately accounted for it or is there a certain madness to his method? And how close is this to depicting the world as we understand it today?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Descartes ideas about existence were to me as convincing as those that I hear at church (meaning, not very inspiring at all). I do not respect his arguments that are based on the statement that God exists because he is perfect; this is as satisfying as “Why? Because.” Taking into consideration Descartes’ love affair with a good God, one can understand his motivation for trying to prove the dualism of mind and body, specifically the ability for the mind to live on after bodily death. While I can appreciate Descartes faith in mathematics as having objective value, I think that the existence of the physical world depends on much more than that; subsequently I respect Descartes’ acceptance of the senses ability to provide at least some knowledge. Humans are, undoubtedly, thinking things, however I cannot necessarily agree with Descartes that this is our sole essence; certainly we are feeling things too, and how can we separate the mind (intellect) and body (senses) when rational thought evolved from emotion/senses/instinct? I think Descartes puts too much emphasis on our ability to think logically (i.e. employing MATH to prove that the physical world exists) thus denying the animal in the human and the credibility of the senses. While Descartes in the end admits that the sense can be trustworthy when coupled with the intellect, I don’t believe the existence of God was necessary to prove that, nor that the mind is capable of being without the body. Though perhaps I am too bold in disagreeing with such an eminent philosopher as Descartes…
I felt much more comfortable with the logic that Descartes’ was using in his Meditations after class. I understand the idea that he wanted to doubt the assumptions that the normal thinker makes in his or her life. Although, I am still not sure that he granted enough evidence to support bringing back his theory. I do believe that it is 100 % necessary for Descartes to first bring back the idea of God in order to have his argument hold any water whatsoever. The idea of an evil genius does ruin his entire theory, so the only hope to “destroy” this evil genius is for Descartes to somehow prove the existence of an infinite, perfect God.
On another note, I do not agree or appreciate the way that Descartes regards the human body in an attempt to show a separation of the human body and mind. I understand the rationale that he was using to try and make a separation of the two, but did he need to refer to the human body as it was a machine? I like to think that my body is sacred and means more to me than something that simply drags my mind a around. I do not see eye with Descartes on this idea.
I also think we should all throw in money and get some Pizza for a class before spring break? 2 and 1/2 hours is long without food... Everyone think about it!
Post a Comment