Descartes:
Conception of Method and Need for Method in Philosophy : “Rene Descartes is
considered as the founder of modern philosophy and I think rightly. He is the
first man with philosophic capacity whose outlook is profoundly affected by the
new physics and astronomy----he does not accept foundations laid by
predecessors but endeavours to construct a complete philosophic edific
denovo.’1
Descartes took mathematics as the model of his philosophical
method. He offers not merely a program of human knowledge but sought to
construct a system of thought which would possess the certainty of
mathematics. In his conception of nature, he was in agreement with the great
natural scientists of the new era: everything in nature - even physiological
processes and emotions - must be explained mechanically, without the aid of forms
or essences. “He accepted the fundamental principles of the time honoured
idealistic or spiritualistic philosophy and attempted to adept them to the
demands of the new science: his problem was to reconcile the mechanism of nature
with the freedom of God and the human soul.”2
He has written in the 'Discourse on Method' that he was
especially delighted with the mathematics, on account of the certitude and
evidence of their reasoning -----. Expressing his concern about the method of
philosophy he says that though it has been cultivated of many years by the most
distinguished man yet there isn’t any single matter within its sphere which is
not still in dispute and
1. B. Russell – History of Western Philosophy
2. Frank Thilly – A History of Philosophy
Clarity and
Distinctness as the Criterion of Truth :
Descartes wanted to establish philosophy on the solid ground
of math so that we could gain distinct and certain knowledge. Descartes
propounded four fundamental laws of thought to monitor the use of the method of
insight in his ‘Philosophical Meditations’. He says:
1. Anything, of which, I will have distinct knowledge will be
accepted.
2. To simplify the problem I will divide any issue into as
many simple parts, as are necessary to solve the problem.
3. Starting from the simplest I will proceed towards the
complex one.
4. The procedure of analysis will be all inclusive, leaving
aside nothing related to that problem.
The above laws are also meant for the directives of behavior.
Doubt and
Methodological Skepticism: Doubt is not the end but means for Descartes. He is not skeptic like Hume
but skepticism is the only method to reach to the accurate knowledge. Rightly says, J P Shukla, “By rigorously persuading the new method of doubt and suspending
all beliefs in the existence of everything, Descartes arrived at a point where
he could doubt no further. He could no more doubt his own existence, the fact of
the spiritual principle in him.”1
1. J P Shukla – Nature of Mind , p. - 20
1. J P Shukla – Nature of Mind , p. - 20
For Descartes doubt is the royal road to reach the
fundamental truth. The fundamental idea of his philosophy is expressed in the
dictum ‘cogito ergo sum’ i.e. ‘I think, therefore I am’. I cannot doubt my own existence because all
doubting implies an activity of thinking. Therefore, the reality of doubting is
the reality of thinking. If there is doubt there must be doubter. Therefore, the
existence of the doubting thinker is proved by the existence of doubt itself
and hence it is beyond doubt. Hence, Descartes’ beginning from doubt comes to the
conclusion that ‘I think, therefore, I am’. The activity of thinking itself is
the proof of my existence. I cannot doubt my doubt and this doubt itself proves
my thinking and thereby my own existence. Thus, Descartes arrives at the
conscious self which requires no external testimony to prove it, because even
the doubt of its existence presupposes it.
Descartes wanted his philosophical thinking to be objective
and impractical and, therefore, he adopted the method of doubt. He noticed that
there was no thought concerning which we could completely be certain. As he
writes, "I have looked in sufficient detail at how notwithstanding the
goodness of God, it may happen that my judgments are false ---. The only inference that can be drawn from this
that his nature is not omniscient".1
He says that error arises only when as often happens, we make
a judgement about something even though we do not have an accurate perception
of it.When we perceive something, so long as we do not make any assertion or
denial about it, we avoid error. And we equally avoid error when we confine our
assertion or denials to what we clearly and distinctly perceive.
1.Philosophical Writings of Rene Descartes
The Cogito,Intuition or
Inference : Rightly says Ben Ami Scharfstein,”the
formula ‘cogito ergo sum’ may well be the most famous in the whole of modern
philosophy.Not only does it have an immediate persuasiveness of its own,but
Descartes,whose influence has been so decisive for modern thought,used it as a
kind of Archimedian fulcrum and move the world,that is established a firm
basis,not only for his system but for philosophy and science in general.”1
Descartes doubted everything but failed to be able to doubt
that he doubted,But this failure turned out to a great success in the form of
the assertion of ‘cogito ergo sum’ I. e. ‘I think therefore I exist’.
‘Cogito ergo sum’ is not a syllogism.It is a simple movement
of thought known perse.A direct intuition ‘I think’ or ‘I doubt’ immediately
implies ‘I am’.2 ‘It is thing that doubts,understands
,conceives,affirms,denies,wills,refuses that imagines also and
perceives,----all other properties belong to my nature.’3
Intuition is not based on sense organs.If it is not based on
sense organs it cannot be inference also because inference,also is based on
perception and deduction.’Cogito ergo sum’ isn’t deduction also.It is something
direct,immediate.As quoted by Y. Masih, ‘Intuition – (Latin ‘intuere’ to look
at)’the direct and immediate apprehension by knowing a subject of itself,of its
conscious states,of other minds, of an
external
1. Philosophy East And West – p. - 191
2.Rene Descartes – Discourse on Method , p.p. – 8-9
3.Ibid
world,of universals, of values or of rational truths’ clearly shows that intuition
is immediate perception.’1
The Real Distinction
Between Mind and Matter :
There is a permanent dualism in the philosophy of
Descartes.Mind is purely thinking thing indivisible,simple,and unextended.And the
human body like all other organic bodies is a machine. The most difficult
problem before Descartes was to show these two diametrically opposed substances
be united to form a single organism.Descartes who was greatly influenced by the
physiological discoveries of Harvey,held that the pineal gland is the principle
seat of the soul because here all the nerve paths from all our organs of sense
and the cerebral hemispheres are brought together.Descartes dualism may be
compared with the dualism of Samkhya.
In his ‘Meditations’ Descartes establishes a rigid dualism
between soul and body.In the second chapter of this treatise he identifies body
or matter with extension.Body is passive,subject to mechanical laws,bereft of
thought,feeling and power of spontaneous action.In sharp contrast to this
extended body stands his non-extended self the essence of which is thought.
‘Thinking’ says Descartes ‘is another attribute of the soul and here I discover
what properly belongs to myself.This alone is inseparable from me ----if I
wholly cease to think I should at the same time altogether cease to be ---I am
,therefore,precisely speaking only a thinking thing.”2
1.Runes , D D – The Dictonary of Philosophy
2.Meditations , 2nd , 4th
Thinking comprises all the activities which we call mental.He
adds that there can be nothing mental apart from that which thinks.Self is that
thing and that thing is an indivisible,unextended substance as opposed to one’s
body which is essentially extension.Self,is,thus for Descartes a thinking substance.
But a question arises here that if the soul was so radically
different from the body,how can there be a working relation between the
two.Descartes found that it was paired throughout.Only the pineal gland,the
function of which was unknown,was single,and was deeply embedded in the centre
of the brain.This singularity of the pineal gland led Descartes to conclude
that this was the seat of the soul.
For Descartes,self is a substance,whose essence is thought.It
is a unity behind the mulplicity of experiences and is directly opposed to
body.According to Kamala Roy, ‘this substansive theory of self can be traced to
the more fundamental view of substance as something permanent ,self-identical
and unchanging behind or beneath the flux of appearances,an unalterable
substratum of real being which supports the qualities or attributes in which it
manifests itself.’1
In spite of the union,however,body and soul remain
distinct;God has put them together,but they are so separate in their nature
that either could be served by God apart from the other.Descartes seems to
adopt the position that the relation between mind and body is not such that a
physical state becomes produces or causes a mental state or vice-versa,but
rather that the mind is simply troubled by organic process.
1. Kamala Roy –The Concept of Self – p. - 10
Thilly rightly says that his obscurity and vacillation on
this point are due
to his desire to
explain the corporeal world or purely mechanical principles,and at the same
time to leave a place for the action of a spiritual principle.The facts of
experience point to an intimate connection between the two worlds,which his
clear cut distinction between them seems to render impossible.1
The soul according to Descartes,does not consist of separate
souls or faculties,but is a single principle expressing itself in various
ways:the same soul that feels also reasons and wills.He distinguishes between
its active and passive phases.The former are our volitions and acts of
will,which depend on the soul itself.The latter include sensations and their
reflections appitites,pain,heat and other bodily feelings,which are referred
either to external objects or the body.
Neither self nor matter can be a substance in the sense in
which God is substance,namely.as self-existent.Prof. Benerjee opines that
Descartes conceive them as substances in so far as they are,in his
view,unrelated to and undetermined by God before creation since they did not
then exist,as well as after creation,being then outside him.2
But according to Y.Masih and C D Sharma Descartes has
accepted two types of substances-first one is primary-i.e. God, and second one
is secondary i. e. mind and matter.Mind and matter both are independent
of each other but God dependent.So,God is the only Absolute
substance and mind and matter are relative one.
1. Frank Thilly – A History of Philosophy , p. – 311
2.Prof. N V Benerjee – Kant’s Philosophy of The Self , p. - 9
Descartes advocates dualism of mind and body as supported by
Christian religion.He writes that there is a great difference between the mind
and the body,in as much as the body by its very nature always divisible,while
the mind is utterly indivisible.1
He further writes that although the whole mind seems to be
united to the whole body,I recognize
that if a foot or arm or any other part of the body is cut off ,nothing has
thereby been taken away from the mind.As for the faculties of willing,of
understanding,of sensory perception and so on,these cannot be termed parts of
mind,since it is one and the same mind that wills and understands and has
sensory perceptions.By contrast,there is no corporeal or extended thing that
can think of which in my thought I cannot easily divide into parts and this
very fact makes me understand that it is divisible.This one argument would be
enough to show me that the mind is completely different from the body –“.2
Above statements made by Descartes show that the substances
exclude one another and there can be no interaction between them:mind cannot
cause any change in the mind.But at other point Descartes gives the different
view,which shows the intimate union between mind and body.He writes that when
the nerves are pulled in the foot ,they in turn pull on inner parts of the
brain to which they are attached and produce in the mind a sensation of pain,as
occurring in the foot ---- the same motion will occur in the brain as occurs
when the
1. Philosophical Writings
2. Ibid
foot is hurt,and so it will necessarily come about that the
mind feels the same sensation of pain.1
These statements show that mind and body compose a
substantial unity.As he writes that nature also teaches me ,by these sensations
of pain,hunger,thirst and so on,that I am not merely present in my body as a
sailor is present in a ship,but that I am very closely joined and as it
were,intermingled with it,so that I and the body from a unit.3 He ,further says
that the sensations of hunger,thirst pain and so on are nothing but confused
modes of thinking which arise from the union and as it were,intermingling of the
mind with the body.2
Thilly rightly says that Descartes seems to adopt the
position that the relation between mind and body is not such that a physical
state becomes,produces or causes a mental state or vice-versa,but rather that
the mind is simply troubled by organic processes.His obscurity ----render
impossible .
MATTER :
Through the diametrically opposed nature of the mind and body
Descartes supports the mechanical explanation of natural sciences.Asserting the
existence of matter different from mind he says that although the ideas
were,strictly speaking,the only immediate objects of my sensory awareness,it
was not unreasonable for me to think that the items which I was perceiving
through the senses were things quite distinct from my thought,namely bodies which
produced
1.Philosophical Writings of Rene Descartes
2. Ibid
the ideas ----it
seemed impossible that they should have come from within me: the only
alternative was that they came from other things.I saw that the ideas which I
formed myself were less vivid than those which I perceived with the senses and
were,for the most part,made up of elements of sensory ideas.1
As far as his views about body is concerned he says that I
could be separated from it,as I could from other bodies;and I felt all my
appetites and emotions in, and on account of this body;and finally,I was aware
of pain and pleasurable tickling in parts of this body,but not in other bodies
external to it.
But at the same time we find him vacillating,because
exceptions are the greatest stumbling blocks for any philosopher.As he writes
that despite the fact that the perceptions of senses of the senses were not
dependent on my will,I didn’t think that I should on that account infer that
they proceeded from things distinct from myself,since I might perhaps have a
faculty not yet known to me which produced them.2
But once again he stumbles and tries to harmonise the both
standpoints by saying that I should not heedlessly accept everything I seem to have acquired from the senses,neither
do I think that everything should be called into doubt.3
Further,taking recourse to the existence of God he says that
the fact
that I can clearly
and distinctly understand one thing apart from
1.The Philosophical Writings of Rene Descartes
2. Ibid
3.Ibid
another is enough to
make me certain that the two things are
distinct,since they are capable of being separated,at least by God.’1
Writing about the duality of mind and body he says that,on
the one hand I have a clear and distinct idea of myself,in so far I am simply
a thinking,non-extended thing:and on the
other hand I have a distinct idea of body,in so far as, this is simply an
extended,non-thinking thing.And according,it is certain that I am really
distinct from my body and can exist without it.’2
The Real Distinction
Between Mind and Matter :
After following the method of doubt Descartes found that the
primary qualityof soul was consciousness or thought.And the quality of matter
was extension.Both of these are independent of each other,though dependent on
God.He says that when we know how much the beasts differ from we understand
much better the arguments which prove that our soul is of a nature entirely
independent of the body and consequently that it is not bound to die with
it.And since we cannot see any other causes which destroy the soul,we are
naturally led to conclude that it is immortal.3
Further he says that ---it (soul) cannot be derived in any
way from the potentiality of matter, but must be specially created.------it is
not sufficient for it to be lodged in the human body like a helmsman in his
ship,except perhaps to move its limbs,but that it must be more closely
1. Philosophical Writings of Rene Descartes
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
joined and united with the body in order to have,besides this
power of movement,feelings and oppetites like ours and so constitute a real
man.1
The dualistic doctrine of the nature of mind is confronted
with some formidable difficulties.According to J P Shukla, ‘the difficulty can
be overcome only when it is realized that the opposition is not the opposition
between two absolutely distinct and independent entities but opposition between
two entities within one universal and concrete realities.’2
As the theory of evolution holds that there is a sure
continuity in the mental processes from the levels of lower to higher,he should
have suggested the hierarchy of consciousness instead of suggesting two
diametrically opposed entities.
Role of God :
Descartes proceeds from the idea of God to the existence of
God.The idea of God is idea of an omniscient,omnipotent,omnipresent entity
which is infinite and perfect.So,the question arises that who is cause of this
idea of God.Man himself cannot be the causDescartes e of this idea of a perfect
Being ,since he is himself imperfect. So,Descartes deduces the conclusion that
God Himself must be the cause of the idea of God,therefore,this idea of God
proves the existence of God.The idea which asserted the existence of substance
is much more real thsn the idea of qualities.Regarding the doubts that are related
with the idea of God,Descartes says that, ‘It may be said that the idea of God
is a
1. Philosophical Writings of Rene Descartes
2. J P Shukla – The Nature of Mind , p. - 21
negative idea,since it
indicates the denial of imperfection.But it is not
the case.The idea of
finitude implies the idea of infinity or of God. We feel ourselves imperfect or
finite in comparison to some thing which is perfect and infinite.Doubt implies
truth and imperfection implies perfection.The idea of infinite qualities cannot
be related to man himself.This procedure of deducing the conclusion of the
existence of God from the idea of God is known as causal argument.
Causal Argument :
Since, only God’s existence can cause the idea of God,it
proves His existence.This argument has been refuted by Kant.He says that the
concept of 100 pounds in my pocket cannot prove its existence there.So,merely
the idea cannot prove the of God.Besides,we have so many ideas of imaginary
things but we cannot prove their existence.
R N Sharma argues that why God should not have innumerable
forms because man,since times immemorial
has imagined God in many different forms.But there is no commonly accepted
concept of God present in the mind of each and every individual,hence the
concept cannot be held to prove the actual existent.1
He further argues that there is no questioning the fact that
every effect has a cause and therefore even the concept of God must have
been caused by something but this does
not necessarily imply that this cause must be God Himself.
St. Anselm’s ontological argument is something different from
the causal argument of Descartes.Firstly the causal argument proceeds
1. R N Sharma – Indian & Western Metaphysics &
Epistemology,p.-206
from the idea of God to the existence of God not from the
essence of
God to its existence.Secondly,the causal argument starts from
the actual idea of God existing in the mind of man.Hence,this argument cannot
be called ontological argument.
Argument From Clear and
Distinct Idea :
According to Descartes,we should accept the most clear and
distinct,as ,true. This is the criterion for truth and falsity of any
concept,according to him.Since concept of God is the most clear and vivid
concept,so God does exists.In fact God Himself is the cause of this clear and
distinct idea and man cannot make any change in it.Since,God is perfect He
deceive men by introducing in their mind illusory or defective concepts.The
cause of an existent as permanent,unchanging,perfect,infinite being is God
Himself,so there must be an existent
being according to that entity like God,which is just and merciful
cannot deceive men.We cannot assert the existence of any deceitful God.
Cosmological Argument
: Descartes further argues about the existence of God on the basis of the
existence of the universe.Now, he
proceeds from effect to cause,from creation to the creator,from living beings
to their origin.But since cause proceeds the effect,so the creator must precede
the created.And had man been his own creator,he would have preceded his creation
which is next to impossible and contradictory as well.At the same time had man
created himself,he would have created himself as perfect and infinite
being,which is not the case.As he writes that since man is a limited thing and
so it is only fitting that his
perfection should be
limited.1
So,man cannot be proved his own creation.Even though we
cannot prove our parents as our creators.Because they are also imperfect and
they also must have some cause.So,ultimately we take shelter of the notion of God
as the cause of the universe and human being as well.We cannot but agree that
it is God who is the first cause of the universe and it is He alone who has the
power to create the objects of the universe.
Ontological Argument : Ontological argument was first of
all given by St. Anselm to prove the existence of God.It was next used by
Descartes to prove the existence of God.According to him non-existent God
implies imperfection but we have concept of a perfect God,so it must be surely
existent one.Non-existent,perfect God is contradiction in terms.Therefore,the
very concept of God implies His existence.This argument is similar to St.Anselm
and St.Augustine.In this argument the existence is proved from the fact or
form.God is the highest being and in Him idea and fact are not
distinguished.His existence does not depend on our idea of Him.On the other
hand,our idea of God is part of
His perfection and reality”.2
According to Descartes necessity lies in the thing itself not
in the thought.Imperfect human beings indicate the divine perfection.The
concept of finite implies its complimentary Infinite Being.Certain
1.Philosophica Writings of Rene Descartes
2.R N Sharma,Indian & Western Epistemology &
Metaphysics,p. 207
supernatural qualities
of certain human beings indicate their divine origin.
-----I myself cannot be the cause of idea of God,for I am
finite,imperfect being,while the idea of God is the idea of a perfect,infinite
being.It must have been placed in me by an infinite being,or God,and hence God
must exist.1
This proof for the existence of God is not the ontological
proof of Anselm,but a causal proof,which begins with the idea of a perfect
being existing in my mind.The purpose of Descartes,here is to show the cause of
the idea not the ontological proof like Anselm which shows the reason for the
concept of God.As Thilly writes: “The argument differs from the ontological
proof in two respects: (1) its starting point is not the concept of God as a
formal essence,but the actual existing idea of God in the mind of a man;
(2)it proceeds by causal inference from the idea of God to
God Himself and not,as in the case of the ontological argument,by strict formal
implication from the essence of God to His existence.
Innate Ideas :
One innate idea of a being who is eternal,omniscient,omnipotent,source
of all goodness and truth,creator of all thing ----and infinite untainted by
imperfections.1
The real knowledge of any object can be gained only through
reason.It cannot be known through sense –organs.We can have true and certain
1.Frank Thilly – A
History of Philosophy , p. – 305
2.Rene Descartes – Meditations, 3rd , p. - 102
knowledge only through
reason.Reason contains innate ideas.These innate ideas are universal and
certain.So,we will have to take help of innate ideas to gain certain and
authentic knowledge.And these innate ideas are produced by reason.
The idea of God is the innate idea.The theory of innate ideas
has been approved by Leibnitz also.Kant has also accepted that the concepts of
maths are based on innate ideas.According to Descartes only few concepts are
innate,rest of them are adventitious.
If we cannot derive true knowledge from sense experience,if
genuine knowledge is the result of reasoning from certain basic concepts and
principles,these must be inherent in the mind itself i.e. innate or a
priori.The mind has its own standards and norms,which guide it in the pursuit
of truth.
By innate knowledge he means at times ideas a truths
impressed upon the mind,principles which the soul finds in itself ,and at other
times,the native capacity of the soul to produce such knowledge in the course
of human experience.The polemic of Locke against the doctrine of innate ideas
contributed to greater clarity and definiteness with regard to the whole
problem and compelled Leibnitz and Kant to present rationalism in a different
form.
Certain knowledge cannot spring from senses,for the senses do
not reveal what things are in themselves,but only how they affect us.Qualities
don’t belong to the object.Devoid of qualities,whatever an object is,we can
know that object only through clear and distinct thinking.If sensory knowledge
is not reliable and if genuine knowledge is the result of reasoning from
certain basic concepts and principles,these must be inherent in the mind itself.These
must be innate or a priori.The functioning of the mind is based on its own
standards or norms.Mind applies these norms or principles on experiences,but
they are already present in the mind.The fundamental idea of Descartes is that
mind has its own norms.But how they do exist in mind he cannot explain
it.That’s why Thilly writes :
“By innate knowledge he means at times ideas or truths
impressed upon the mind,principles which the soul finds in itself and at other
times ,the native capacity of the soul to produce such knowledge in the course
of human experience.The polemic of Locke against the doctrine of innate ideas
contributed to greater clarity and definiteness with regard to the whole
problem and compelled Leibnitz and Kant to present rationalism in a different
form.”1
1.Frank Thilly – A History of Philosophy , p. - 314
No comments:
Post a Comment