If I say “Descartes”, many people will say
“Cogito ergo sum” or “I think so I am”, and that’s it. Even if they can explain
what was meant with this sentence and why it was important, I think that most
who are not philosophers, and maybe also many who are, don’t know that
Descartes contributed to many different fields of philosophy and science. So,
if it wouldn’t have been William Harvey who discovered the blood circulation,
it might have been Descartes who had already made much progress in his
research. He invented also analytic geometry.
Some of Descartes’s ideas are weird from
the current point of view, and I assume that also already in his days they were.
For instance, he thought that animals have no feelings, since they have no
souls. They are not different from machines. So if you give a dog a kick and it
screams, this screaming is merely a sound and not an expression of pain. Therefore
vivisection was not a problem for Descartes.
If you think that philosophy is obscure,
maybe you have read Hegel and Kant, but you haven’t read Descartes. Descartes
is one of the most clearly writing philosophers who ever lived. His maxim was:
Everything can be said in a clear and distinct way, say in plain words that
everybody can understand. Otherwise it’s nonsense. He didn’t use this only as a
rule of thumb but he wrote even a book with methodological rules for clear and
distinct philosophical and scientific reasoning: The Rules for the Direction of the Mind. It contains 21 rules with extensive
explanations. It’s a pity that he didn’t finish the book, but nevertheless it
is worth reading. His explanations are as interesting as the rules themselves are
and they contain also a criticism on the way many people reason. The rules are
not only useful for philosophers, scholars and scientists, but for everybody
who is arguing. So keep these rules also in your mind when you listen to a
politician. (If enough British had done so, maybe they would never have voted
for the Brexit). Take for example this quote from the explanation to Rule IX:
“It is a common human weakness to consider
most beautiful what is difficult. Most people think that they know nothing when
they see a very transparent and simple cause of something. Yet they admire
grandiloquent and far-fetched argumentations by philosophers, even though they
are usually based on foundations that nobody ever fully has understood. ... [I
want to stress that] knowledge, how hidden it is, must not be deduced from important
and obscure things but only from what is easy and general.”
Descartes is right, but how often does what
is difficult seems more important to us than what is simple? And not only words
can mislead us, but also the pose of the speaker often does, as Descartes
explains in his comment on Rule XII:
“The self-confident allow themselves to put
forward their conjectures as true proves; in cases they absolutely know nothing
about they think to see obscure truths, as through a fog. They are also not
afraid to present them and to connect their concepts then with certain terms.
With the help of these terms they are in the habit to talk and to reason about
many things that in fact neither they nor their listeners understand.” The
modest, so Descartes continues, keep silent and let finding the truth to
others, because they think that they themselves are not competent enough and they
belief what the self-confident say.
Have I to add anything? Isn’t this what we
everywhere see around us? But even if we have the right attitude and are honest
and open, language can block mutual understanding and prevent to express what
we mean. For for one a word means this and for another that and as Descartes
says in his explanation to Rule XIII (a bit adapted and generalized by me) :
“Questions about words happen so often that almost all controversies between
philosophers would disappear, if they always agreed about the meaning of the words.”
There is a joke that says that there are
two philosophical main laws:
The First
Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists
an equal and opposite philosopher.
The
Second Law of Philosophy: They are both wrong.
Alas, often this seems true, for most philosophers
didn’t read Descartes’s Rules and
don’t use it as a guide. If they would, they would know that they “ought to
give the whole of [their] attention to the most insignificant and most easily
mastered facts, and remain a long time in contemplation of them until [they]
are accustomed to behold the truth clearly and distinctly.” (Descartes’s Rule
IX)
No comments:
Post a Comment