René Descartes - Discourse on Method

I am reading through some of the major works of René Descartes. His Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences, of which I read the John Veitch translation, is a seminal essay that is commonly read by those studying philosophy the world over. In terms of understanding Western thought and culture, this is an essential work. Despite its integral nature, it still yields a few surprises.

In the treatise, Descartes sets out to ascertain the great truths in the universe. In order to accomplish his endeavor, he examines the best method for one to reach critical conclusions.

Though a relatively short work, Descartes’s ruminations are extensive and multifaceted. He first starts off dispensing with, at least temporarily, all preconceived ideas, including our basic assumptions about life.   Included among the discarded ideas are philosophic, theological and scientific views espoused by the great minds of history.

On the issue of philosophy, Descartes writes,

“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”,

Descartes then proceeds to build up a belief system, supposedly rejecting any thoughts that can be doubted in any way. He contends that the only truths that he will accept are those that he can prove through experimentation and reasoning. He starts with his famous proposition of Cogito ergo sum, or “I think, therefore I am,” by which he establishes that his mind exits.  He builds up from here. Through a chain of reasoning, the famous philosopher goes on to prove, in his view, the existence of a perfect God. The work concludes with the championing of scientific experiments as the only way to reach additional universal truths.

There is so much here that I think one could devout years to the study of this essay. It has had a profound impact upon the modern world. Many of our notions about skepticism, the scientific method, thinking for one self, as well as theological ruminations can be traced through this work. Though Descartes did not invent all of these ideas, he expressed and organized them in a way that helped set the tone for their dissemination throughout our culture. Variations upon this approach have reverberated down the centuries and have played a key role in shaping both the scientific method as well as modern thinking and discourse employed by people with enormously diverse belief systems.

One of many things that I find of great interest here is how Descartes’s view of God flies in the face of the entire “faith must be opposed to reason” mindset. Of course, the supposed dichotomy between faith and science is a legitimate point of inquiry and an interesting take upon human ideas. However, it is but one way to look at these ideas. Perhaps as a result of simplistic films, television shows and books, our culture seems inundated with the idea that reason in opposition to religion is the only way to examine these issues.

Such a conflict does not exist in Descartes’s worldview. This philosopher helped to invent the modern skeptical, rationalistic worldview. However, he also finds that the existence of the Supreme Being to be eminently provable from the point of view of a rational mind.

Descartes’s reasoning in respect to God is complex. I cannot really do it justice in a single blog post. An oversimplification of it starts with the idea that humans are imperfect. We have an understanding of perfection, however. Such a comprehension of true perfection could only exist if there was a truly perfect Being who created us. We need such a perfect Being to compare ourselves to, otherwise we could not even have a concept of perfection.

He writes about the idea of perfection inherent in our minds,

“But this could not be the case with-the idea of a nature more perfect than myself; for to receive it from nothing was a thing manifestly impossible; and, because it is not less repugnant that the more perfect should be an effect of, and dependence on the less perfect, than that something should proceed from nothing, it was equally impossible that I could hold it from myself: accordingly, it but remained that it had been placed in me by a nature which was in reality more perfect than mine, and which even possessed within itself all the perfections of which I could form any idea; that is to say, in a single word, which was God”

There is much more to this line of reasoning for the reader to discover.

I do not agree with Descartes’s logic for various reasons. My big quibble would be that the concept of “perfection,” while a vital human idea, is not something that is actually built into the universe. Despite its extremely important value within human thought systems, it is not really “real” on a certain level. Furthermore, there is no actual objective concept of “perfection.” Finally, even if there was a reality to the “Form” of perfection, it seems a trick of semantics to assert that an imperfect mind could not imagine true perfection, even if such true perfection did not actually exist in the form of a God.

With that said my objection to Descartes’s reasoning is not my primary point. To the contrary, I admire this philosopher’s methodology. I am somewhat understanding of an assertion that God exists based upon a thoughtful approach to reality such as this. Though I disagree with him, Descartes’s theory on a deity is based upon a systematic search for the truth. Especially in our age with its profusion of stories that only seem to be capable of approaching this issue from the perspective of reason and belief in God as irreconcilable enemies, Descartes’s alternate view is eminently refreshing and due much respect.

No doubt, readers will take all sorts of things from this work. My point about faith and rationality is only one of many peaks in a very, very large iceberg. This work is a stimulating and essential read for anyone who seeks to understand some great thinking of the past as well as how our modern world came to be.

The Warden - Anthony Trollope

The below contains spoilers as I needed to reveal some key plot elements in order to convey my thoughts on this book.

The Warden by Anthony Trollope is the first book in the Chronicles of Barsetshire series and also the first book that I have read from this author. This work centers upon Septimus Harding, an elderly clergyman who is the warden of a retirement home and hospital for elderly and indigent church employees. Harding is a humble and decent man who becomes caught in the middle of a conflict.

John Bold, a somewhat overbearing, crusading reformer who, though a friend of Harding, begins to take on a cause that puts him at odds with the warden. The hospital was set up as a trust several hundred years earlier through an endowment from a wealthy patron. The question of how much compensation the church should be paying to the warden and other officials of the trust is brought into question by Bold’s exertions. Basically, Bold asserts that too much money is paid to the warden and that more money should go to the patients. As the story progresses, criticism of Harding mounts and he is even personally attacked by self-serving and unethical journalists.

Harding’ s son in law, the even more overbearing Archdeacon Grantly, takes up the cause of the church and Harding in opposition to Bold. Complicating matters are such contributing factors as Harding himself begins to believe that his compensation is too high and unjust, Bold and Harding’s youngest daughter Eleanor are in love, and the hospital’s patients become divided over the issue.

Harding is a surprisingly interesting character. His meekness is at times so profound that it might be characterized as weakness. At one point, he decides to resign his position of warden because he cannot stand the public criticism but mostly because he concludes that he is truly not entitled to the generous salary.  He openly acknowledges that, since his son-in-law would oppose this measure, he must avoid Grantly, as he would not be able to carry out his conviction in the face of the archdeacon’s strong will.  However, he ultimately finds great moral courage in himself when he finally does resign.

Trollope’s style has been compared to Charles Dickens’s, who was a contemporary and an acquaintance. Based upon this one work, I would argue that while there are similarities between the two authors, Trollope has his own distinct style. For instance, Trollope’s characters, though less entertaining than those of Dickens, are also less absurd and generally more realistic. Likewise, Trollope paints a more balanced picture of the world’s contending forces. Trollop also seems less sentimental than Dickens.

One thing that this novel exudes is its advocacy of moderation, balance and simplicity, as is personified in Harding. The warden is caught in between overzealous, self-aggrandizing reformers and arrogant, unbending conservatives. The author sees a lot of good and a lot of bad in these contrasting views and in the people who hold them. Thus, he clearly is advocating a middle ground. This acknowledgement of shades of good and bad inherent in different types of people and ideologies seems to drive a theory of the world where moderation and cautious change work best, since no one view is completely in the right or in the wrong. The dogmatists on both sides, personified by both Grantly and Bold, are shown to be mostly well intentioned, but also as causing harm in the world. This writer is critical of those who see the world in too black and white terms. One thing that I really admired here is that despite their deep flaws, these antagonists are not demonized and each is shown to have good qualities.

An example of this rejection of simplistic thinking occurs at one point when Trollope refers to a commentator/reformer who is unable to distinguish between shades of gray, Trollope writes,

No man ever resolved more bravely than he to accept as good nothing that was evil; to banish from him as evil nothing that was good. 'Tis a pity that he should not have recognised the fact, that in this world no good is unalloyed, and that there is but little evil that has not in it some seed of what is goodly.

Trollope reserves his harshest criticism for a popular novelist who, in this author’s view, portrays the world very simplistically and through the lens of over exaggeration.  This novelist is clearly and unquestionably a thinly disguised version of Charles Dickens. Trollope describes him,

Of all such reformers Mr Sentiment is the most powerful. It is incredible the   number of evil practices he has put down: it is to be feared he will soon lack subjects, and that when he has made the working classes comfortable, and got bitter beer put into proper-sized pint bottles, there will be nothing further for him left to do. Mr Sentiment is certainly a very powerful man, and perhaps not the less so that his good poor people are so very good; his hard rich people so very hard; and the genuinely honest so very honest. Namby-pamby in these days is not thrown away if it be introduced in the proper quarters. Divine peeresses are no longer interesting, though possessed of every virtue; but a pattern peasant or an immaculate manufacturing hero may talk as much twaddle as one of Mrs Ratcliffe's heroines, and still be listened to. Perhaps, however, Mr Sentiment's great attraction is in his second-rate characters.

 

Trollope goes on and on for pages carping about  “Mr Sentiment” in a similar vain.

If there is any doubt about the true identity of this author, two of Dickens’ characters, Mr. Buckett and Mrs. Gamp, are actually identified by name! The theme of moderate balance and avoidance of hyperbole finds its perfect foil in Charles Dickens.

There is so much here, and as usual I have not touched upon many aspects of this novel. Certain characters, including both Harding and Bold, are surprisingly complex and very well drawn.  The point of view of the novel is fascinating, it is usually third person, but occasionally drifts into first person and into other variations. There are a lot of aesthetically pleasing allusions to classic mythology. Harding and his experiences often parallel Christ and the Gospels, including Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane as well as the story of the Last Supper. Ultimately, this is an extremely well crafted character study that is also an entertaining read. I cannot wait to get to the remainder of the Chronicles of Barsetshire.

My commentary on the second book in the Chronicles of Barsetshire series, Barchester Towers is here.

My commentary on the third book in the Chronicles of Barsetshire series, Doctor Thorne is here.

My commentary on Trollop’s unusual Pont of View is here.