Sneaky Fucking Descartes

Discourse on Method

I love Descartes. The reason I love him is because I think he is a very specific breed of asshole. He gives us his method. Then he draws some absurd conclusions based on it. The problem I have, and the beauty of his method, is even if we prove him wrong we have proven him right. He gives us what he says is the starting point. He even asks us to carry on from what little he has accomplished. He plays his modesty card, explains where he has made it and how and says he would like someone else to try. The thing is that if we move on from him and prove him wrong he was right in the starting point. The starting point is the key. 

The starting point does seem a legitimate place to start. 

One thing I find interesting with all discussions I’ve ever been in with Descartes as our topic is that no matter which stance you take you are right and wrong. Ultimately we are all wrong. If both sides of an argument can be right then neither is right, as far as I’m concerned anyway. Class discussions are always entertaining on Descartes, they can go anywhere you can imagine and two opposing sides are equally defended by Descartes writings. This is probably due in large part to our reading of Descartes. He tries to define the way in which he uses words but it never seems to equal exactly what we mean with the same words. For example, Descartes’s proof for the existence of a perfect being, a god, makes sense if you agree with him. If you question him, as I’m sure he would like you to do, it falls to pieces. We can say that there must be a perfect being out there that gave me the idea of the perfect being but it doesn’t make sense that our imperfectness would allow us to have an accurate idea of perfectness. It does not seem that we are capable of having this idea. But, just because we can’t accurately conceive of an idea of something does not meant that that something isn’t out there. Follow? It’s a big circle jerk. The thing is if we accept the foundation of Descartes’s method we can’t help but get there, and we cannot outright disregard what he is doing because it seems to make sense.

“My third maxim was to endeavour always to master myself rather than fortune, to try to change my desires rather than to change the order of the world, and in general to settle for the belief that there is nothing entirely in our power except our thoughts” (23). I love this. It is so very simple. I agree with it but at the same time I want to take it further. Call it vanity or what you will. I think that through mastering one’s self we can have a better attempt at what we call fortune. I think that if I’m right and can prove that I’m right about something then I don’t give a damn that the rest of the order of the world doesn’t see it. Eventually they will see it. I cannot just stop at mastering myself otherwise I have accomplished a great deal for nothing other than the comfort of my soul. I would hope that if something that could benefit everyone came about through mastering one’s self that that one would think to share it in an attempt to change the order of the world. Just because we cannot control everything does not give us permission not to try if we try we must.

“Good sense is the most evenly distributed thing in the world” (5). Bullshit. I think this quote depends on how we read Good Sense and what we take it to mean. If we think that Good Sense separates us from the beasts then I’d question what use it actually is. The brutes and beasts who do not have Good Sense don’t seem to cause as much mayhem as we do, nor do they cause it so well if they do cause any. If Good Sense simply means the ability to perceive things then we are both good and bad at it but having it is still a good thing. We can see things and feel them but we cannot see the bigger picture sometimes or we cannot see beyond the things. We can also misperceive things. I like having my senses intact so this is a good thing. Anyway, this sentence really does depend on how you read it.

Although we have gained some medical insight because of Descartes’s division of the mind and body I am going to argue that it is not all good that has come from it. Our body may function like a watch. I’m not going to go into the finer details of human physiology. I am fairly certain that my body does not just function on its own. I am certain that what we call the mind plays a part in things. I do not think the mind is just some function of the body but I will not entirely disagree with the possibility. There seems to be some sort of ‘will power’, if you will, that can differentiate between actions. The body as a watch does what it does. The problem I have is that when our body is hungry it makes us want to eat but I can prevent myself from eating certain foods if I want. That isn’t simple clockwork. We are instinct driven, which can be considered clockwork, but there is something we do, some sort of thing we refer to as our ‘I’, which can moderate the clockwork. We have more of a ‘free-won’t’ then a ‘free will’. I do not feel that the free won’t is a regular function of the clockwork. The ‘free-won’t’ actually seems to be in contrast to the clockwork model.

Closing thought: Just because our senses are not perfect does not mean that we should disregard our perceptions. Our senses are all we have. We can question them and investigate them but at the end of the day they are what we have.