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.
