RELATED QUESTIONS:
· Discuss the problems of and criticisms against Cartesian rationalism.
· Discuss the criticism of Descartes rationalism.
(YOUR
INTRODUCTION)
THE CONCEPT OF CARTESIAN RATIONALISM
The core mission of Cartesian rationalism is to present a rationalist blueprint for scientific research as it aims at perfectly harmonizing the cardinal goals of epistemology (which is a critical evaluation of all our claims to knowledge) with the rigorous nature of science. Like other thinkers of his time, Descartes was attracted to the notion of a scientific method of investigation, which when followed would enable him to make new discoveries and push the boundaries of knowledge. Thus, he devised his own scientific method of investigation by splitting the process (which he called the methodic doubt) into four systematic stages. Thus, Descartes says, we should being by clearing away our old and disordered schemes of knowledge. After that, we should follow four specific rules of inquiry that will enable us to methodically build a coherent system. All this would be evaluated below;
i. The stage of real and universal but methodic doubt
Rule one is to accept only indubitable, clear and distinct ideas. He describes here in his Discourse on the Method his own experience when applying this rule. He says “...the first of these was to accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize to be so; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitation and prejudice in judgments, and to accept in them nothing more than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I could have no occasion to doubt it”. His point is that the foundation of his knowledge should be only facts that he knows with certainty and which he can recognize as such because of the clarity and distinctness that these facts display. In essence, if there is any idea of which there is a slight possibility to doubt it, it should be discarded and considered as faulty.
ii. The stage of fundamental truth (cogito ergo sum)
Rule two is that, when trying to solve problems, Descartes would divide up each of the difficulties which are examined into as many parts as possible, and as seemed necessary. This is done in order that the problem might be resolved in the best manner possible. It is at this stage that we attain the certain evidence Descartes has been searching for. This certain evidence is what Descartes calls the “cogito”. The cogito is no other but “myself” (the mind) as the basic indubitable truth about knowledge. Descartes was definitely certain that he had found the particular solid rock bottom of knowledge which universal scepticism cannot even refute. This fact which is the only firm and indubitable knowledge is that “I exist”. Descartes puts it this way; “...cogito ergo sum” meaning; I think, therefore I am.
iii. The stage of clear and distinct ideas
Rule three lies in the affirmation of clear and distinct ideas. After we have been able to establish the truth of the cogito as the basic foundation of knowledge, the next step is to proceed to recognize the truth of some other ideas belonging to the mind and present in the mind, of which they are clear and distinct. This is because the supreme criteria of truth are “clear and distinct ideas”. However, Descartes holds that the methodology and procedure which we use to arrive at these other clear and distinct ideas must be rigorous and methodic as that of the cogito. Some of these clear and distinct ideas being referred to in this stage by Descartes (apart from the cogito) are substances of the mind such as, God, being, soul, matter, cause, number, time, space, motion and the likes. Like the cogito, these mind substances are also evidently true. Also, Descartes presented God as the second absolute foundation of knowledge (after the cogito). Descartes does not imply the religious notion of God, but the philosophic notion of God. This philosophic notion of God asserts that God is a thinking thought, a perfect mind whose main goal is to create perfect things. Thus, for us to be like God, we must be very rigorous, logical and strict in our thoughts and actions. This rigour of thought and action is what connects epistemology (rationalism) to science, thereby laying a philosophical foundation for science.
iv. The stage of the rules of procedure
Rule four lies in the stage of self re-examination. At this stage, we are meant to further clarify our doubt and reconfirm the truth which we hold about things and the world. The concept being applied in this stage is that of rational precaution. This is due to the fact that, by now, we are very much aware that the road to achieving clear and distinct ideas is methodic and rigorous. However, this rigorous and methodic doubt must be guided by certain rules; according to Descartes, these rules are four in number, thus;
· Avoid prejudice by refusing to pass judgement on anything except that which showed itself so clearly that it could never be doubted.
· Divide each difficulty or challenge into as many parts as possible.
· Think in an orderly fashion, by starting with the simplest idea to the knowledge of the most complex detail.
· Make a complete enumeration of the links in an argument and pass them through a rigorous check, making sure nothing was left out.
THE CRITIQUE OF CARTESIAN RATIONALISM
Like the stages of the methodic doubt, the basic criticisms of same are also four in number, although they are not actually simultaneous to the stages of the methodic doubt. Without much ado, these four criticisms would be evaluated below;
i. The problem of solipsism
The first criticism of Descartes rationalism was put forward by Edmund Husserl- the father of phenomenology. Husserl says that Descartes rationalism contains the problem of solipsism. By solipsism, he means that Descartes made thought the object of thought itself. This problem of solipsism occurs at the second stage of the methodic doubt (the stage of fundamental truth). Descartes assertion of “cogito ergo sum” – I think, therefore I am, is ridden with solipsism. This is because Descartes in trying to clear his mind of all errors ended up realizing that he was thinking, and he could not doubt this. He thus postulated his rationalist dictum “cogito ergo sum”. In essence, Descartes found himself thinking about thought.
Edmund Husserl puts forward two basic criticisms in this regard. Firstly, he argues that thought (the mind) is by nature meant to grasp essences or make abstractions from physical phenomena. Thus, the object of thought (the mind) should be phenomena and not thought itself. Thought reaches out to things in the world and is not self-contained of it. Secondly, Husserl argues that thought could be the object of thought (the mind) only when we are mentally aware that we are thinking; for example, when we try to remember or when we are aware that we are lying. In essence, Husserl holds that it is not factual that thought should be the only possible thing which the mind is concerned with (and that is what Descartes implied in the second stage of the methodic doubt).
ii. The problem of imposing the scientific method on philosophy
Rene Descartes is probably upset at the fact that philosophy is highly subjective and a far cry from being objective. He says that his methodic doubt is an attempt to institute a destruction of the basic foundations of philosophy, doubt all its postulated theories; as long as it possible. Afterwards, Descartes intends to build philosophy on a strong and sure foundation, such that its theories would be so certain that it would be impossible to doubt it. However, Descartes seems to admire and desire that the principles guiding philosophy be implemented similarly to that of Mathematics, Physics and Geometry. Descartes surely is impressed at the objectiveness of Mathematics, as regards the fact that, all Mathematicians globally agree on the definite principles guiding the subject. e.g. “3 + 3 = 6” e.t.c. Nevertheless, Descartes was not careful at allowing the methods of science (Mathematics, Physics and Geometry) supersede that of philosophy.
Philosophy, as it were, is basically a rational activity centered on reality. Mathematics is a synthetic a priori activity based on numbers. Reality is infinitely multifaceted and numbers is just an atomic aspect of its mother, reality. Also, it is quite easy to systemize numbers in an objective way, due to its fixed nature, but this is not the penultimate case for reality. Reality is very complex and with an endless multifaceted gamut. Thus, it is illusionary for Descartes to think that he can destroy the basic structures of philosophy or channel it objectively; even considering the fact that reality represents our existential universe.
Moreover, taking into apt consideration the scope of philosophy; it is clear that Mathematics is part of the infinite group of things that encapsulates the scope of philosophy. Hence, philosophy should determine mathematics as an infrastructure of discipline (philosophy of mathematics), and not the other way round. Therefore, it would be abasing and abashing for philosophy to be channeled according to the Mathematical paradigm. That would be misplacement; and a shameful conspectus of the very purpose of philosophy. What Descartes might end up creating would be “mathematical philosophy”.
Lastly, we uphold that Descartes should not have allowed prejudice influence his ideology towards philosophy. Descartes was a mathematician ever before he became a philosopher, which explains why he postulated the “methodic doubt”. This very fact aligns with one of the definitions of philosophy as “a reflection on human experience”. This conspectus shows that one’s experience affects his philosophy. We strongly believe that Descartes experience as a mathematician influenced his philosophy of methodic doubt.
iii. The problem of Cartesian rationalism possessing religious sentiment
Although the Cartesian methodic doubt is undoubtedly rigorous, it still committed the “non-sequitur” (not necessary) fallacy at the third stage of the methodic doubt. Initially, at the second stage, Descartes had established the cogito as the absolute foundation of knowledge, but he now proceeded to establish God as the next foundation of knowledge in the third stage. This was totally unnecessary as he now withdrew the ultimate autonomy he initially gave to the cogito and shared it with God (the philosophic-thinking God). Also, sources have it that the emphasis on God in Cartesian rationalism is rather political in the sense that Descartes wanted to please the pope and the religious community of his time. This is prejudice and it is against the principle of the methodic doubt itself.
iv. Cartesian rationalism promotes the substance theory of the mind
Fourthly, Cartesian rationalism promotes the substance theory of the mind. This theory maintains that ideas are innate to the mind. Descartes in the third stage of the methodic doubt maintains that there are some clear and distinct ideas which are substances of the mind such as, God, being, soul, matter, cause, number, time, space, motion and the likes. Thus, the doctrine of innate ideas presupposes that ideas are substances present in the mind and that our understanding of the world is very much determined by our inner orientation given by these substances. It thus creates the misconception that ideas are inborn in us and that there are certain properties in the mind that are the same in every human. But if this were true, then there would be no need for the struggle to learn anything; there would be no need for schools or society as we would be a sufficient and complete system by default. Since, this is not the case, it follows that Descartes postulation of these innate ideas in the mind is inconsistent.
(Please, note that you might not be asked to present all these
criticisms. You might be asked to explain one or two out of these. Take note!)
No comments:
Post a Comment