Renee Descartes’s Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences is a philosophical and autobiographical work from 1637 which recounts parts of Descartes’ life, and which attempts to set forth a method of philosophy grounded on the objectivity of a mathematical method of deduction.
Dissatisfied with the decadent scholasticism of his time, Descartes sets off to renew philosophy not by furthering the dialogue with past tradition, but by attempting to start things afresh. Unlike the classical philosophers who came after Socrates, Descartes begins with a tabula rasa (clean slate). As a sort of “new Socrates” Descartes is rightfully considered the father (or grandfather) of modern philosophy. In his philosophy he “addressed his first two concerns (the search for certainty and the dream of a universal science) by turning to mathematics.”[1] Thus, a prominent emphasis on certainty is paramount for Descartes who finds the scholasticism of his age to be somewhat fideistic in its blind adherence to maxims. And so, he sets out to offer philosophical demonstrations predicated on scientific methods, specifically mathematics.
This shift from the metaphysics of scholasticism to a mathematically rigorous investigation of truth and ideas with one’s mind created a major change in philosophy’s methodology: In the Scholastic method the philosopher begins with the outside world and from there moves on to ideas about the world. For Descartes the philosopher begins with ideas and from there moves on to the world. The former is a realist approach (the starting point is the real world) and the latter is an idealist approach (the starting point is our ideas). The consequences of this shift will be felt in almost every area of philosophy: the body-mind discussion (and hence philosophical anthropology in general), the relationship between epistemology and metaphysics (how epistemology supplants metaphysics in the investigative order), the relinquishing of key concepts such as formal and final causality (and the subsequent influence this has on ethics), etc. Although Descartes and his thought does not come out of a vacuum, it can be said that it truly represents a turning point in the history of philosophy.
The book is divided into six parts: (1) Considerations on the sciences, (2) principal rules of his method, (3) applying the principles to discover moral truths, (4) the existence of God and of the human soul, (5) applying the principles to matter, medicine, and anthropology, and (6) future paths for philosophy.
The first chapter is heavily autobiographical and walks the reader through Descartes’ experience with the various sciences. He recounts a profound disillusionment with the field of philosophy: “Of philosophy I will say nothing, except that when I saw that it had been cultivated for many ages by the most distinguished men, and that yet there is not a single matter within its sphere which is not still in dispute, and nothing, therefore, which is above doubt, I did not presume to anticipate that my success would be greater in it than that of others; and further, when I considered the number of conflicting opinions touching a single matter that may be upheld by learned men, while there can be but one true, I reckoned as well-nigh false all that was only probable.”[2]
The second chapter, alongside the usual autobiographical account, sets forth the principles of Descartes’ method:
(1) “The first was never to accept anything for true which I did
not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy
and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgement than what was
presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of
doubt.
(2) The second, to divide each of the difficulties under
examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its
adequate solution.
(3) The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by
commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by
little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more
complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in
their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence.
(4) And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted.”[3]
In the third chapter Descartes lists three maxims which he believes are the most reasonable way to act: (1) To act moderately and to avoid extremes, (2) to always adhere to opinions that are least doubtful, and (3) to seek to change oneself instead of the world.
Chapter four is the heart of the entire book, and in it, Descartes sets out to prove the existence of God and the human soul. It is in the very first paragraph of this chapter where his famous “cogito ergo sum” is found. Thus, beginning by proving his own existence, he proceeds to prove God’s existence in order to secure the reality of the world.
And so, Descartes attempts to prove God’s existence through what has come to be called “the causal argument.” William F. Lawhead summarizes it as follows: “(1) Something cannot be derived from nothing. In other words, all effects (including ideas) are caused by something. (2) There must be at least as much reality in the cause as there is in the effect. (3) I have an idea of God (as an infinite and perfect being). (4) The idea of God in my mind is an effect that was caused by something. (5) I am finite and imperfect, and thus I could not be the cause of the idea of an infinite and perfect God. (6) Only an infinite and perfect being could be the cause of such an idea. (7) Therefore, God (an infinite and perfect being) exists.”[4]
Although not the same as St. Anselm’s ontological argument, this Cartesian proof for God shares many similarities with it. The main difference is that Anselm focuses on the necessity of the extra-mentality of the perfect idea, whereas Descartes focuses on the possibility for such an idea to even be had by a thinking mind in the first place. Descartes argues based on the principle of proportionate causality that only a perfect and infinite being could conceive of the perfect and infinite idea (much of this is similar to Karl Rahner’s concept of man’s fundamental preapprehension of being). The weakness in Descartes’ argument lies in the fact that one cannot know whether this idea of the perfect and infinite being is in fact a perfect and infinite idea, especially if we have never encountered perfection and infinity. This ends up being a circular argument. The strength in Descartes’ argument lies in the fact that he recognizes both that our minds have an open-ended dynamism toward being which requires explanation, and that this open-ended dynamism points to something fundamentally transcendent. Whether we call this transcendent thing God is not conclusive, however.
Descartes’s dualism can often be oversimplified. One could call it a “closely united dualism”. He argues that if, through his method, he comes to deduce a distinct thing with clarity, then that must be what the thing is and since he deduced that he “exists” because he “thinks,” then he is a thinking thing. And so, if possess a body, it must be something he has and not something he is since he is a thinking thing, and a body is not a thinking thing. Lawhead summarizes: “Descartes started out by being sure of his own mental existence but in doubt as to whether or not his body existed. This led him to conclude that the mind is a separate substance from the body because it does not need the body in order to exist or to be understood.”[5] It simply does not follow, however, that because something is distinguishable in one’s mind that is it so in reality. However, for Descartes, locomotion, sensation, imitation, these are all done within the “world of extension.” On the other hand, Reasoning, deducing, and thinking, do not find themselves within the “world of extension.” Therefore, my truest and purest self is not within the “world of extension.” And so, Descartes concludes that he has a body (closely connected nonetheless) that is another substance than himself, which nevertheless belongs to himself. Lawhead once again puts it pithily: “The mind and the body are separate substances because they have completely different attributes.”[6]
But, according to Aquinas, “the soul, which is the first principle of life, is not a body, but the act of a body; thus heat, which is the principle of calefaction, is not a body, but an act of a body.”[7] In other words, the soul, although the source of spiritual intellection, is also the act of the body, and as “the act of the body” cannot be considered as a separate substance. In fact, the intellectual faculties of the soul are faculties which rely upon the soul’s sensory faculties, which find their actuality in the body. This is why a soul apart from a body is in an unnatural state: one which is introduced by the violence of death. Death is a kind of metaphysical ripping apart of a substance from the wholeness of what it is designed to be. The body and the soul are not in competition due to differing qualities, rather the soul is the source of man’s spiritual and somatic powers; powers which rely upon each other in a fundamental unity. This is why man is a being whose animality is rational and whose reason is incarnate.
The Cartesian split between the spiritual and the material
will prove detrimental to the subsequent history of philosophy. Had he
maintained a “distinction” and not a “division” his thought would have been
more accurate. In this division Descartes seems to think of man as “a spiritual
mind” with a “material body” added to it (some overreact against Descartes and
think of man as a “biological animal” with “spiritual reason” added on top). Rather,
spiritual reason is made present in the biological sphere, both “distinct
principles” being a unity of substance. Commenting on the rationality of our biological acts, David
Schindler says: “There is a kind of knowing in the very
eating, a making manifest of what is, insofar as
it is the act of a rational animal and not just of an animal that happens to
be, in addition, rational. [...] Human action is always and inevitably declarative, whatever else it may be.”[8]
In chapter five Descartes explains that he has done extensive study in geology, astronomy, and physics, but decides to merely summarize these discoveries in a grand sweeping way. He goes on to describe the cosmos and the properties of light, heat, gravity, etc., he speaks of plant life, animal life, and human biology, although he does so according the knowledge of his time. He seems to be reluctant to disclose his larger study in detail in fear of being censored by other scientists and theologians.
Finally, in chapter six Descartes concludes his book by exhorting philosophers to continue the path of his scientifically rigorous method so that we might unearth the mechanics of the universe and become masters over the natural world.
In conclusion, Descartes’s endeavor is first and foremost motivated
by the desire for complete epistemic certainty. This leads to the inversion of
the traditional hierarchy of metaphysics over epistemology (he seeks to
establish the very possibility of a metaphysics through a prior epistemology). This
leads to a reduction of ultimate reality by using it as a tool for human
knowledge, as oppose to making use of human knowledge to further grasp ultimate
reality. Thus, he seems to require God for the possibility of certainty instead
of using philosophy for its traditional purpose: uncovering the mystery of God.
Underpinning Descartes' philosophy seems to be a restlessness or unease with
mystery. Not mystery in the way the term is too often abused: “You do not
understand the trinity? Not to worry, it is a mystery.” Mystery is not the wall
which reason bumps against, and blind faith has to now take its place. Rather,
mystery is the foundation of the edifice of reason. Mystery is when reason
finally finds its playground. In other words, faith that the world can be more
and more understood because it is suffused with and caused by logos is the necessary requirement for reason to
be a worthy enterprise to begin with. One cannot prove reason with reason, and
yet philosophy must rest on a faith in reason. And so, there is an inexhaustibility
to being and reason that
leaves no room for the “perfect method” Descartes seeks to create. In order to
stand firm (this is partly what the words “I believe” and “Amen” mean), we have
to approach being as mystery, but it is “mystery”
that is in fact necessary for understanding, not understanding that is
necessary to “solve” mystery.
[1] William F. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery (The University of
Mississippi: Cengage Learning, 2015), 243.
[2] Renee Descartes, Discourse
on Method (http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/discourse/chapter01.htm),
chapter 1.
[3] Renee Descartes, Discourse
on Method, chapter 2.
[4] William F. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery, (The University of Mississippi:
Cengage Learning, 2015), 232.
[5] William F. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery, (The University of
Mississippi: Cengage Learning, 2015), 256.
[6] Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery, 256.
[7] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, 50-119, Latin/English
Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas, Volume 14, (Green Bay WI: Aquinas
Institute Inc., 2012), q. 75, a. 1, respondeo.
[8] David C. Schindler, The Politics of the Real: The Church Between Liberalism and
Integralism (Steubenville, OH: New Polity Press, 2021), 217.
No comments:
Post a Comment