What do you think?
Rate this book
Discours de la méthode
"Je pense, donc je suis" : relue dans son contexte, cette maxime familière rappelle la place prépondérante de la raison dans la connaissance, clef de voûte d'une méthode philosophique qui allait révolutionner toute la pensée. Car Descartes n'est pas seulement l'auteur d'une formule : il est aussi le chef de file du courant rationaliste, et surtout le père de ce qu'on prendra l'habitude de nommer la tradition philosophique française. Après le Discours de la méthode, la philosophie changera de visage et, que l'on soit pour ou contre Descartes, il faudra compter avec lui.
Mais ce texte philosophique a aussi la particularité de révéler une écriture personnelle, qui se revendique comme telle : à l'heure où le latin est langue officielle de la pensée, Descartes choisit d'écrire en français, et de surcroît à la première personne, livrant, après Montaigne, l'un des premiers essais autobiographiques. Derrière celle du penseur, c'est donc la voix d'un auteur que nous sommes invités à entendre. --Karla Manuele
253 pages, Paperback
First published June 8, 1637
1372 people are currently reading
23095 people want to read
About the author
René Descartes
1,617 books2,380 followers
Meditations on First Philosophy
(1641) and
Principles of Philosophy
(1644), main works of French mathematician and scientist René Descartes, considered the father of analytic geometry and the founder of modern rationalism, include the famous dictum "I think, therefore I am."
A set of two perpendicular lines in a plane or three in space intersect at an origin in Cartesian coordinate system. Cartesian coordinate, a member of the set of numbers, distances, locates a point in this system. Cartesian coordinates describe all points of a Cartesian plane.
From given sets, {X} and {Y}, one can construct Cartesian product, a set of all pairs of elements (x, y), such that x belongs to {X} and y belongs to {Y}.
Cartesian philosophers include Antoine Arnauld.
René Descartes, a writer, highly influenced society. People continue to study closely his writings and subsequently responded in the west. He of the key figures in the revolution also apparently influenced the named coordinate system, used in planes and algebra.
Descartes frequently sets his views apart from those of his predecessors. In the opening section of the Passions of the Soul , a treatise on the early version of now commonly called emotions, he goes so far to assert that he writes on his topic "as if no one had written on these matters before." Many elements in late Aristotelianism, the revived Stoicism of the 16th century, or earlier like Saint Augustine of Hippo provide precedents. Naturally, he differs from the schools on two major points: He rejects corporeal substance into matter and form and any appeal to divine or natural ends in explaining natural phenomena. In his theology, he insists on the absolute freedom of act of creation of God.
Baruch Spinoza and Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz later advocated Descartes, a major figure in 17th century Continent, and the empiricist school of thought, consisting of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume, opposed him. Leibniz and Descartes, all well versed like Spinoza, contributed greatly. Descartes, the crucial bridge with algebra, invented the coordinate system and calculus. Reflections of Descartes on mind and mechanism began the strain of western thought; much later, the invention of the electronic computer and the possibility of machine intelligence impelled this thought, which blossomed into the Turing test and related thought. His stated most in §7 of part I and in part IV of Discourse on the Method .
A set of two perpendicular lines in a plane or three in space intersect at an origin in Cartesian coordinate system. Cartesian coordinate, a member of the set of numbers, distances, locates a point in this system. Cartesian coordinates describe all points of a Cartesian plane.
From given sets, {X} and {Y}, one can construct Cartesian product, a set of all pairs of elements (x, y), such that x belongs to {X} and y belongs to {Y}.
Cartesian philosophers include Antoine Arnauld.
René Descartes, a writer, highly influenced society. People continue to study closely his writings and subsequently responded in the west. He of the key figures in the revolution also apparently influenced the named coordinate system, used in planes and algebra.
Descartes frequently sets his views apart from those of his predecessors. In the opening section of the Passions of the Soul , a treatise on the early version of now commonly called emotions, he goes so far to assert that he writes on his topic "as if no one had written on these matters before." Many elements in late Aristotelianism, the revived Stoicism of the 16th century, or earlier like Saint Augustine of Hippo provide precedents. Naturally, he differs from the schools on two major points: He rejects corporeal substance into matter and form and any appeal to divine or natural ends in explaining natural phenomena. In his theology, he insists on the absolute freedom of act of creation of God.
Baruch Spinoza and Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz later advocated Descartes, a major figure in 17th century Continent, and the empiricist school of thought, consisting of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume, opposed him. Leibniz and Descartes, all well versed like Spinoza, contributed greatly. Descartes, the crucial bridge with algebra, invented the coordinate system and calculus. Reflections of Descartes on mind and mechanism began the strain of western thought; much later, the invention of the electronic computer and the possibility of machine intelligence impelled this thought, which blossomed into the Turing test and related thought. His stated most in §7 of part I and in part IV of Discourse on the Method .
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,179 reviews
October 1, 2020
The writing in the book is very accessible and the language used comprehensible, yet the content is dense with a deep insightful meaning. The Discourse on the Method (1637) is written by the revered French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650).
Descartes claims that the capacity of having a good sense is equally distributed among humans, and the capability to make sound judgments is a natural ability that all people possess. But it's not enough to just have this ability; we have to use it properly. In order to advance as individuals the key is to implement a proper method of thought so we can form better opinions and arrive at the right conclusions.
It seems that Descartes only finds limited knowledge in all the different fields of study, such as philosophy, medicine, mathematics, history, law, and others. This leaves him unsatisfied and drives him to look elsewhere, and in the end, he decides to look within and study himself in seeking the real truth.
Descartes procedure of thought initially requires him to doubt everything in order to free his mind of any previous convictions and assumptions. By following a set of steps and principles, Descartes, clears his mind by doubting all earlier held beliefs other than his own existence, because the act of being able to doubt ones existence, proves the existence of ones mind, therefore ones existence. This is how Descartes arrives at his conclusion "I think, therefore I am" which he considers an important and necessary truth.
Descartes believes that the method he prescribes will lead us to properly differentiate truth from falsity and will result in arriving at other truths about the natural world.
He has formulated this method for himself, for his own use, and others are welcomed to use it if they desire. Descartes doesn't want to be intrusive and force his method of reasoning upon anyone. He also presents himself as just an ordinary individual. There is this sense you get that the modesty he employs in his writing at times seems sincere, but occasionally it comes off a bit exaggerated.
I did notice that there are some similarities of Descartes method to Galileo Galilei's scientific method. On another note, there is evidence that Descartes was frightened for his own life when he received the news of Galileo's imprisonment for heresy. As a result, Descartes proves, in the last one third of the book, God’s existence, and that the theological teachings are correct. This part was less argumentatively convincing than the first two thirds of the book. All in all, the method is brilliant and revolutionary. It's a must read for all.
Descartes claims that the capacity of having a good sense is equally distributed among humans, and the capability to make sound judgments is a natural ability that all people possess. But it's not enough to just have this ability; we have to use it properly. In order to advance as individuals the key is to implement a proper method of thought so we can form better opinions and arrive at the right conclusions.
It seems that Descartes only finds limited knowledge in all the different fields of study, such as philosophy, medicine, mathematics, history, law, and others. This leaves him unsatisfied and drives him to look elsewhere, and in the end, he decides to look within and study himself in seeking the real truth.
Descartes procedure of thought initially requires him to doubt everything in order to free his mind of any previous convictions and assumptions. By following a set of steps and principles, Descartes, clears his mind by doubting all earlier held beliefs other than his own existence, because the act of being able to doubt ones existence, proves the existence of ones mind, therefore ones existence. This is how Descartes arrives at his conclusion "I think, therefore I am" which he considers an important and necessary truth.
Descartes believes that the method he prescribes will lead us to properly differentiate truth from falsity and will result in arriving at other truths about the natural world.
He has formulated this method for himself, for his own use, and others are welcomed to use it if they desire. Descartes doesn't want to be intrusive and force his method of reasoning upon anyone. He also presents himself as just an ordinary individual. There is this sense you get that the modesty he employs in his writing at times seems sincere, but occasionally it comes off a bit exaggerated.
I did notice that there are some similarities of Descartes method to Galileo Galilei's scientific method. On another note, there is evidence that Descartes was frightened for his own life when he received the news of Galileo's imprisonment for heresy. As a result, Descartes proves, in the last one third of the book, God’s existence, and that the theological teachings are correct. This part was less argumentatively convincing than the first two thirds of the book. All in all, the method is brilliant and revolutionary. It's a must read for all.
May 27, 2025
إعمال العقل
بعد البرامج المدرسية ومطالعة التاريخ الفكري للأمم
بعد قراءة الأدب واستخلاص الرؤى المتنوعة التي تتشكل منها منظومة شاملة للشعور الإنساني والعلاقات الاجتماعية
بعد استقراء قوانين التحضر
بدأ ديكارت في قراءة ذاته وقراءة صفحات الكتاب الكوني الكبير
تمسك بمبادئ أخلاقية لا بحيد عنها تحقق له الاستقرار النفسي، وتوفر له المناخ الصحي لصياغة منهج قراءة للعلوم
التصالح مع العالم، والتأمل، والعزلة وقت العمل، وإنكار الذات
ووضع قانون رؤيته أنا أفكر إذن انا موجود
وحدد أسس النظر المنهجي
اليقين العام الذي يدرك به وجوده العقلي
التحليل
التركيب
الاستقراء
قواعد احترام العقل لدخول عصر العلم بحرية ذهنية تتيح للحضارة التحليق برسوخ محكم لاكتشاف الكون وخدمة الإنسانية
الكتاب كان مقررا على طلبة الفرقة الثالثة بكلية الإداب بالجامعة المصرية في ثلاثينيات القرن العشرين
المترجم محمود محمد الخضيري وضع منهجه في نقل النص إلى العربية بوضوح فطالع الترجمات اللاتينية والإنجليزية والألمانية، وأفاد من مصطلحات الفلاسفة العرب، وصاغ الكتاب بأدبية صياغة ناصعة، وحقق المصطلحات بالشروح في هوامش تفصيلية
من هذا السياق تعلم نجيب محفوظ معنى المشروع الفكري للذات
فهو ابن الجامعة في ذاك العصر
بعد البرامج المدرسية ومطالعة التاريخ الفكري للأمم
بعد قراءة الأدب واستخلاص الرؤى المتنوعة التي تتشكل منها منظومة شاملة للشعور الإنساني والعلاقات الاجتماعية
بعد استقراء قوانين التحضر
بدأ ديكارت في قراءة ذاته وقراءة صفحات الكتاب الكوني الكبير
تمسك بمبادئ أخلاقية لا بحيد عنها تحقق له الاستقرار النفسي، وتوفر له المناخ الصحي لصياغة منهج قراءة للعلوم
التصالح مع العالم، والتأمل، والعزلة وقت العمل، وإنكار الذات
ووضع قانون رؤيته أنا أفكر إذن انا موجود
وحدد أسس النظر المنهجي
اليقين العام الذي يدرك به وجوده العقلي
التحليل
التركيب
الاستقراء
قواعد احترام العقل لدخول عصر العلم بحرية ذهنية تتيح للحضارة التحليق برسوخ محكم لاكتشاف الكون وخدمة الإنسانية
الكتاب كان مقررا على طلبة الفرقة الثالثة بكلية الإداب بالجامعة المصرية في ثلاثينيات القرن العشرين
المترجم محمود محمد الخضيري وضع منهجه في نقل النص إلى العربية بوضوح فطالع الترجمات اللاتينية والإنجليزية والألمانية، وأفاد من مصطلحات الفلاسفة العرب، وصاغ الكتاب بأدبية صياغة ناصعة، وحقق المصطلحات بالشروح في هوامش تفصيلية
من هذا السياق تعلم نجيب محفوظ معنى المشروع الفكري للذات
فهو ابن الجامعة في ذاك العصر
November 15, 2021
اولین درس فلسفه اینه که تورو قوی کنه در برابرِ آنچیزی که تورو از فکر کردن باز میداره...
اگر دیدید کسی فلسفه میخوونه اونهم به تنهایی... سعی کنید باهاش در موردش صحبت کنید، حتی اگر نمیدونه، راهنماییش کنید.
کسی که مطالعهی فلسفه داره، فقط خووندن کتاب مطرح نیست، بلکه یک جهان گستردهای داره که ظاهرش خووندن کتابه...
کسی که فلسفه میخوونه، حتما عجیبوغریب نیست و ممکنه خیلی چیزهارو ندونه (که بهحقیقت به حرف گهربار سقراط برمیگرده)، و این شیوهی خودش رو داره که یکی مثل من تازه اول راهه و باید خیلیچیزارو یاد بگیره.
کسی که فلسفه میخوونه قرار نیست باهوش باشه، اما کنجکاوه، نسبت به سوالاتی که تمام ذهن و دنیاش رو گرفته و گمان میکنه میتوونه از طریق فلسفه به بعضی سوالاتش برسه.
خود دکارت میگه:
از فلسفه چیزی نمیگویم، جز اینکه میدیدم با آنکه از چندین قرن نفوس ممتاز بدان سرگرم بودهاند، هیچ قضیهای از آن نیست که موضوع مباحثه و مجادله و بنابراین مشکوک نباشد و به خود آنچنان غرور نداشتم که امیدوار باشم در این باب برخوردار از دیگران شوم...
بیایم درس اول رو از دکارت باهم یاد بگیریم:
نخست اینکه هیچگاه هیچچیز را حقیقت نپندارم جز اینکه آنچه درستی آن بر من بدیهی شود، یعنی از شتابزدگی و سبق ذهن سخت بپرهیزیم و چیزی را به تصدیق نپذیرم مگر آنکه در ذهنم چنان روشن و متمایز گردد که جای هیچگونه شکی باقی نماند.
هیچچیزی نمیتوان در مورد کتاب گفت جز آنکه نکتهی اصلی کتاب را (اینکه چگونه دکارت به این جمله رسید) بنویسم:
من هستم پس میاندیشم
گاهی اوقات حس ما خطا میکند و ما را به اشتباه میاندازد، فرض کردم که هیچ اموری در جهان در واقع چنان نیست که حواس به تصور ما درمیآورند و چون کسانی هستند که در مقام استدلال حتی در مسائل سادهٔ هندسه به خطا میروند و استدلال غلط میکنند و برای من هم مانند مردم دیگر خطا جایز است، پس همهٔ دلایلی را که پیش از این برهان پنداشته بودم، غلط انگاشتهام و چون هم عوالمی که به بیداری برای ما دست میدهد در خواب هم پیش میآید ، در صورتی که هیچیک از آنها در آنحال حقیقت ندارد، بنا را بر این گذاشتم که فرض کنم هرچه هروقت به ذهن من آمده، مانند توهماتی که در خواب برای مردم دست میدهد، بیحقیقت است، ولیکن همان دم برخوردم به اینکه در همین هنگام که من بنا را بر موهوم بودن همهچیز گذاشتهام، شخص خودم که این فکر را میکنم ناچار باید چیزی باشم و توجه کردم که این قضیه
میاندیشم پس هستم
(یا فکر دارم پی وجود دارم) حقیقتی است چنان استوار و پابرجا که جمیع فرضهای غریب و عجیب شکاکان هم نمیتواند آن را متزلزل کند، پس معتقد شدم که بیتأمل میتوانم آن را در فلسفهای که در پی آن هستم، اصل نخستین قرار دهم.
باقی کتاب در مورد چگونه عقل را به کار بردن در مسائل علمی،فلسفی و گفتگوست...
و من فکر میکنم زیربنای فرهنگ اروپا از خرد دکارت گرفته شده.
اما اینکه چگونه باید سخنان دکارت را نقد کرد کاریست کارستان که فلاسفهی بعدی این کار را میکنند.
این کتاب رو بدون هیچ پیشنیازی میتوونید بخوونید.
اگر دیدید کسی فلسفه میخوونه اونهم به تنهایی... سعی کنید باهاش در موردش صحبت کنید، حتی اگر نمیدونه، راهنماییش کنید.
کسی که مطالعهی فلسفه داره، فقط خووندن کتاب مطرح نیست، بلکه یک جهان گستردهای داره که ظاهرش خووندن کتابه...
کسی که فلسفه میخوونه، حتما عجیبوغریب نیست و ممکنه خیلی چیزهارو ندونه (که بهحقیقت به حرف گهربار سقراط برمیگرده)، و این شیوهی خودش رو داره که یکی مثل من تازه اول راهه و باید خیلیچیزارو یاد بگیره.
کسی که فلسفه میخوونه قرار نیست باهوش باشه، اما کنجکاوه، نسبت به سوالاتی که تمام ذهن و دنیاش رو گرفته و گمان میکنه میتوونه از طریق فلسفه به بعضی سوالاتش برسه.
خود دکارت میگه:
از فلسفه چیزی نمیگویم، جز اینکه میدیدم با آنکه از چندین قرن نفوس ممتاز بدان سرگرم بودهاند، هیچ قضیهای از آن نیست که موضوع مباحثه و مجادله و بنابراین مشکوک نباشد و به خود آنچنان غرور نداشتم که امیدوار باشم در این باب برخوردار از دیگران شوم...
بیایم درس اول رو از دکارت باهم یاد بگیریم:
نخست اینکه هیچگاه هیچچیز را حقیقت نپندارم جز اینکه آنچه درستی آن بر من بدیهی شود، یعنی از شتابزدگی و سبق ذهن سخت بپرهیزیم و چیزی را به تصدیق نپذیرم مگر آنکه در ذهنم چنان روشن و متمایز گردد که جای هیچگونه شکی باقی نماند.
هیچچیزی نمیتوان در مورد کتاب گفت جز آنکه نکتهی اصلی کتاب را (اینکه چگونه دکارت به این جمله رسید) بنویسم:
من هستم پس میاندیشم
گاهی اوقات حس ما خطا میکند و ما را به اشتباه میاندازد، فرض کردم که هیچ اموری در جهان در واقع چنان نیست که حواس به تصور ما درمیآورند و چون کسانی هستند که در مقام استدلال حتی در مسائل سادهٔ هندسه به خطا میروند و استدلال غلط میکنند و برای من هم مانند مردم دیگر خطا جایز است، پس همهٔ دلایلی را که پیش از این برهان پنداشته بودم، غلط انگاشتهام و چون هم عوالمی که به بیداری برای ما دست میدهد در خواب هم پیش میآید ، در صورتی که هیچیک از آنها در آنحال حقیقت ندارد، بنا را بر این گذاشتم که فرض کنم هرچه هروقت به ذهن من آمده، مانند توهماتی که در خواب برای مردم دست میدهد، بیحقیقت است، ولیکن همان دم برخوردم به اینکه در همین هنگام که من بنا را بر موهوم بودن همهچیز گذاشتهام، شخص خودم که این فکر را میکنم ناچار باید چیزی باشم و توجه کردم که این قضیه
میاندیشم پس هستم
(یا فکر دارم پی وجود دارم) حقیقتی است چنان استوار و پابرجا که جمیع فرضهای غریب و عجیب شکاکان هم نمیتواند آن را متزلزل کند، پس معتقد شدم که بیتأمل میتوانم آن را در فلسفهای که در پی آن هستم، اصل نخستین قرار دهم.
باقی کتاب در مورد چگونه عقل را به کار بردن در مسائل علمی،فلسفی و گفتگوست...
و من فکر میکنم زیربنای فرهنگ اروپا از خرد دکارت گرفته شده.
اما اینکه چگونه باید سخنان دکارت را نقد کرد کاریست کارستان که فلاسفهی بعدی این کار را میکنند.
این کتاب رو بدون هیچ پیشنیازی میتوونید بخوونید.
August 25, 2010
3.0 to 3.5 stars (though as mentioned below, the first four sections get 4 to 5 stars).
One of the most influential works in history of modern science/philosophy, the full name of the work is "Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences." It is a work that deals with the ascertaining of knowledge from "first principals" and creates a method from which all research into scientific principals could be based.
He begins by saying that because so many different (and contradictory) theories have been set forth by learned and great men that it is impossible to "trust" anything that you can not verify yourself based on your own observations. This skepticism of all that has come before was the cornerstone for modern scientific thinking and experimentation to prove results.
Highlights of this very short work are as follows:
THE METHOD: In Section II, Descartes defines the "Method" he will use to estblish knowledge of the world as the following four steps: (1) Be skeptical of everything and do not accept anything as "truth" until you can be certain of its correctness and completely free from doubt; (2) divide each problem into the smallest parts possible so that you can be looking at its component parts which will be the easiest to understand (3) start from most basic concept and add complexity slowly and in degrees so that you can be absolutely certain of each step along the way and (4) from your use of (1) through (3) create general rules applicable to the whole of the subject and that apply to the largest possible group.
THE MORALS: In applying the Method, Descartes in Section III identifies 3 maxims (which ge calls morals) that he will adhere to in his studies: (1) obey the laws of his Country (2) be firm and resolute in the pursuit of knowledge and (3) conquer self rather than fortune (by which he means don't pursue truth based on your own material advantage lest you avoid a line of reasoning that may be true but would lead to a disadvantage for you. In other words, truth should be your only goal.
APPLICATION OF THE METHOD: In Section IV, Descartes applies the Method and derives the basic truth of his existence by stating the famous line "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). He also goes on to prove the existence of God. This last "proof" is the most controversial aspect of the work and is called the negotiable ontological proof of the existence of God.
Up through the end of Section IV, I would have given this 4 or 5 stars as it was both a important work and written such that it could be easily understood. Section 5 and 6 (the last half of this very short work) seemed to me to be very "muddled" and uninteresting and dealt with the difference between man and animals and the working of the human circulatory system. The meat of the work in is the first 4 sections and that is what I would recommend to anyone interested in the history of scientific and philosophical thought. Definitely, an important work.
One of the most influential works in history of modern science/philosophy, the full name of the work is "Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences." It is a work that deals with the ascertaining of knowledge from "first principals" and creates a method from which all research into scientific principals could be based.
He begins by saying that because so many different (and contradictory) theories have been set forth by learned and great men that it is impossible to "trust" anything that you can not verify yourself based on your own observations. This skepticism of all that has come before was the cornerstone for modern scientific thinking and experimentation to prove results.
Highlights of this very short work are as follows:
THE METHOD: In Section II, Descartes defines the "Method" he will use to estblish knowledge of the world as the following four steps: (1) Be skeptical of everything and do not accept anything as "truth" until you can be certain of its correctness and completely free from doubt; (2) divide each problem into the smallest parts possible so that you can be looking at its component parts which will be the easiest to understand (3) start from most basic concept and add complexity slowly and in degrees so that you can be absolutely certain of each step along the way and (4) from your use of (1) through (3) create general rules applicable to the whole of the subject and that apply to the largest possible group.
THE MORALS: In applying the Method, Descartes in Section III identifies 3 maxims (which ge calls morals) that he will adhere to in his studies: (1) obey the laws of his Country (2) be firm and resolute in the pursuit of knowledge and (3) conquer self rather than fortune (by which he means don't pursue truth based on your own material advantage lest you avoid a line of reasoning that may be true but would lead to a disadvantage for you. In other words, truth should be your only goal.
APPLICATION OF THE METHOD: In Section IV, Descartes applies the Method and derives the basic truth of his existence by stating the famous line "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). He also goes on to prove the existence of God. This last "proof" is the most controversial aspect of the work and is called the negotiable ontological proof of the existence of God.
Up through the end of Section IV, I would have given this 4 or 5 stars as it was both a important work and written such that it could be easily understood. Section 5 and 6 (the last half of this very short work) seemed to me to be very "muddled" and uninteresting and dealt with the difference between man and animals and the working of the human circulatory system. The meat of the work in is the first 4 sections and that is what I would recommend to anyone interested in the history of scientific and philosophical thought. Definitely, an important work.
April 1, 2023
What to add that has not already been said about what is perhaps the most famous of "speeches"? I think not much, so I will briefly summarize the object and the reason for the book.
First, the preface clarifies that it is a question of the work's approach not as an exposition of philosophy but as a preparation for it. Indeed, Descartes sees himself constrained by learning of the condemnation of Galileo for his ideas too accurate for the time to make consequent cuts on what should be the work at the base. His physics had been based on recent discoveries of Galileo - heliocentrism and the movement of the earth - he could not afford to corroborate these theses and risk condemnation himself. He, therefore, manages to be content to plow the ground without really planting anything, his seeds being dependent on ideas that he has no right to support.
He will explain his philosophical method to us, which he says should allow anyone who uses it to increase their knowledge by degree gradually. So this method, briefly, what is it?
We can say that he makes philosophy a science, not in so far as he creates concepts with the help of scientific formulas, but in the sense that he seeks truth, from which will flow truths, his method. So is scientific, but he applies it to philosophy. He doesn't want "maybe" and is fed up with contingency-based philosophies; he sees Stoicism as a magnificent palace built of sand and mud. This first truth will be the cogito.
Cogito ergo sums, I think therefore I am, the action of doubting necessitates that I believe, but if I believe, I must be, that I will be a thinking substance. This fact is the first brick of the vast building that Descartes erected.
Given European events, Descartes is satisfied with the minimum; however, this is not bad since it allows him to prepare for the assimilation of his philosophy. If his thought were work, the Discourse on Method would undoubtedly be its introduction.
Therefore, a fascinating work since it is the philosophical basis of a thinker who will have profoundly influenced all European and world thought; the cogito is universal with which all have confronted in one way or another. An accessible book, although it's the 17th century, imposes an old-fashioned style on us, convoluted turns of phrase, although sometimes very pretty.
It is to be read as one of the bases of modern philosophy but insufficient for anyone who wants to claim adequate knowledge of Cartesian thought.
First, the preface clarifies that it is a question of the work's approach not as an exposition of philosophy but as a preparation for it. Indeed, Descartes sees himself constrained by learning of the condemnation of Galileo for his ideas too accurate for the time to make consequent cuts on what should be the work at the base. His physics had been based on recent discoveries of Galileo - heliocentrism and the movement of the earth - he could not afford to corroborate these theses and risk condemnation himself. He, therefore, manages to be content to plow the ground without really planting anything, his seeds being dependent on ideas that he has no right to support.
He will explain his philosophical method to us, which he says should allow anyone who uses it to increase their knowledge by degree gradually. So this method, briefly, what is it?
We can say that he makes philosophy a science, not in so far as he creates concepts with the help of scientific formulas, but in the sense that he seeks truth, from which will flow truths, his method. So is scientific, but he applies it to philosophy. He doesn't want "maybe" and is fed up with contingency-based philosophies; he sees Stoicism as a magnificent palace built of sand and mud. This first truth will be the cogito.
Cogito ergo sums, I think therefore I am, the action of doubting necessitates that I believe, but if I believe, I must be, that I will be a thinking substance. This fact is the first brick of the vast building that Descartes erected.
Given European events, Descartes is satisfied with the minimum; however, this is not bad since it allows him to prepare for the assimilation of his philosophy. If his thought were work, the Discourse on Method would undoubtedly be its introduction.
Therefore, a fascinating work since it is the philosophical basis of a thinker who will have profoundly influenced all European and world thought; the cogito is universal with which all have confronted in one way or another. An accessible book, although it's the 17th century, imposes an old-fashioned style on us, convoluted turns of phrase, although sometimes very pretty.
It is to be read as one of the bases of modern philosophy but insufficient for anyone who wants to claim adequate knowledge of Cartesian thought.
February 25, 2017
“...the perusal of all excellent books is, as it were, to interview with the noblest men of past ages, who have written them.”
― René Descartes, Discourse on Method
There are certain books that are hugely influential and fantastic reads. This one was hugely influential. In many ways modern science (and philosophy) owes a great deal to some of the frameworks, methods, and rationalities posited by Descartes in this book. Hell, even the idea of starting off skeptical and building from there owes a large debt to Descartes. It isn't, however, a perfect book. Some of his "proofs" of God and the immortality of the spirit are a bit shaky (like his understanding of the functioning of the heart). But those are quibbles, minor imperfections, in a work that probably deserves to stand next to classics such as: Darwin's The Origin of Species for biology, Newton's The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy for science, and Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking for mainstreaming French cuisine.
I cook, therefore I eat.
When you reduce and clarify Descartes down, you are left with a lonely method of skimming off those things you can't prove, and a sticky relationship with God.
Bon Appétit!
Bon Pensées!
― René Descartes, Discourse on Method
There are certain books that are hugely influential and fantastic reads. This one was hugely influential. In many ways modern science (and philosophy) owes a great deal to some of the frameworks, methods, and rationalities posited by Descartes in this book. Hell, even the idea of starting off skeptical and building from there owes a large debt to Descartes. It isn't, however, a perfect book. Some of his "proofs" of God and the immortality of the spirit are a bit shaky (like his understanding of the functioning of the heart). But those are quibbles, minor imperfections, in a work that probably deserves to stand next to classics such as: Darwin's The Origin of Species for biology, Newton's The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy for science, and Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking for mainstreaming French cuisine.
I cook, therefore I eat.
When you reduce and clarify Descartes down, you are left with a lonely method of skimming off those things you can't prove, and a sticky relationship with God.
Bon Appétit!
Bon Pensées!
August 4, 2020
Un libro de la literatura universal del que se pueden rescatar varios puntos importantes, entre ellos la búsqueda de un verdadero método para llegar al conocimiento de todas las cosas mediante 4 preceptos:
1° no admitir como verdadera cosa alguna, como no supiese con evidencia que lo es.
2° dividir cada una de las dificultades que examinaré en cuantas partes fuere posible.
3° conducir ordenadamente mis pensamientos, comenzando por los objetos más simples y más fáciles de conocer, para ir ascendiendo, poco a poco, hasta el conocimiento de los mas compuestos.
4° hacer unos recuentos tan integrales que llegase a estar seguro de no omitir nada más.
Y salvo estos y unos pocos puntos que son rescatables de la obra, resulta un texto que no ha envejecido muy bien ya que muchas ideas son obsoletas, pero es interesante leer un texto de casi 400 años donde ya se buscaba un método para llegar a la verdad de las cosas mediante el uso de la razón.
1° no admitir como verdadera cosa alguna, como no supiese con evidencia que lo es.
2° dividir cada una de las dificultades que examinaré en cuantas partes fuere posible.
3° conducir ordenadamente mis pensamientos, comenzando por los objetos más simples y más fáciles de conocer, para ir ascendiendo, poco a poco, hasta el conocimiento de los mas compuestos.
4° hacer unos recuentos tan integrales que llegase a estar seguro de no omitir nada más.
Y salvo estos y unos pocos puntos que son rescatables de la obra, resulta un texto que no ha envejecido muy bien ya que muchas ideas son obsoletas, pero es interesante leer un texto de casi 400 años donde ya se buscaba un método para llegar a la verdad de las cosas mediante el uso de la razón.
June 20, 2016
I concede the point: my entire philosophical raison d'être orbits around the deconstruction of the false dualism unleashed upon the world by René. Though, albeit, alas, perhaps it is unfair to blame him entirely, seeing as the Greeks started it, and considering that R. was most likely just articulating an ethos since embodied by “Western” (European) civilization.
Dualism: the idea of separation, articulation, and demarcation, specifically into a binary framework, is the essential construct grounding “Western” progressive thought (kind of like binary mathematics is the language of digital machines; the parallel is not coincidental). The essence of dualism lies in making a distinction, differentiating between two. Such distinctions seem at first, superficially, to occur naturally in lived experience: night and day, woman and man, left and right, cold and hot, future and present; historically these differentiations have been embedded in habitual actions and ideas about morality: good and bad, moral and immoral. Upon closer inspection, of course, experience is not dual in the least: sex is not binary, our perception of space is constituted of more than directionality, while our experience of time is bound up in the present and encompasses both history (past) and hope (future). Yet dual interpretations of experience have reigned in our imaginations for thousands of years.
The Age of Reason. In its essence, dualistic thought makes distinctions; such distinctions constitute the mechanics of “Western” reason. Logical versus irrational thought, knowledge versus opinion, empirical fact versus experience: reason is born of and enabled by an intricate delineation of opposing forces, one of which is always considered superior: mind over body, logic over poetry, linear argument over cyclical interrogation. Thus at the core of dualism lies an inherent judgment, that one of the two is differentiated as inadequate, unnecessary, superfluous, or inferior. Knowledge wins over Meaning. Reason over Art. Mind over Body. Man over Woman. Analysis over Synthesis.
The dualism which punctures Western reason has furthered an almost compulsive race for the “truth” (versus semblance, or illusion); the truth is pursued through the collection of distinguishable facts, labeled “knowledge,” which is to be empirically verified, quantitatively measured, objectively classified, and so forth. In the classrooms of today, for example, this belief manifests as standards centered on collections of knowledge to be mastered, as quantitative measures of student progress and teacher effectiveness, and as the glorification of “cognitive” tasks over social, emotional, or bodied experiences. Dualism reigns at every level of our social, cultural fabric and material realities – it’s not just a philosophical remnant of a time long past.
Linear Time. Rational thought requires orderly linearity as it seeks to collect knowledge and use it to explain causes and effects; linearity implies that in following a course of action, one progresses towards a goal, end, or objective; as G. W. Hegel wrote, human history is constantly developing through conflict. This mode of temporal understanding is so embedded in our daily acts that it is difficult to imagine alternatives: we operate by the dictates of a 24 hour clock, 7 hour week, etc, we imagine career and educational “paths” which lead towards an ultimate goal, and we have come to see the course of life itself in a similar way.
The World as Mechanism: Closed Under Physics. The scientific revolution enabled by the articulation of linear reason, by the assumptions of progress, and by metaphors of knowledge as a collection of facts to be conquered, led increasingly throughout the late Renaissance years to paradigm shifts away from beliefs in the predestination of religion and towards an understanding of the nature of the world as predetermined by physical laws. Revolutionaries of the era proposed that the laws of the natural world were “closed under physics,” or able to explain any and all past, present, and future phenomena through their application; according to classical conceptions of science born in this period, “all matter acts according to predetermined and knowable laws unending material progress, communicated by media and consumption based culture” (See CA Bowers, Revitalizing the Commons: Cultural and Educational Sites of Resistance and Affirmation ).
The End: The World is Conquered
Only, of course it’s not, as phenomenologists, critical theorists, physicists, artists, etc etc have been attesting to in recent generations. YES dualism gave us technology, science, a way to shed religious fear in favor of scientific inquiry. BUT it also forgot so much along the way: the “other” (the body, the spirit, experience, art), an organic, non-mechanistic vision, purpose, meaning…
And all this WHY?!? (ok, the Greeks, and European history, but also, THIS BOOK).
At first, I began Discourse on Method in trepidation: for, after all, what if some of the ideas were indeed sound? What if I had spent my entire adult life attempting to correct and refute a construct that held up under scrutiny? But alas my fears were allayed within pages, when it became clear that Descartes is just about the least introspective person who ever lived.
It goes like this: Descartes thought and thought, and couldn’t find the answers sitting at his dingy desk in his small dark room. So he went out into the world. He “traveled… frequented people of various humors and conditions, gathered varied experiences.” And alas, he still couldn’t write anything down, he was so caught up in all the experience. So he said, to hell with this, and went home. Where thought immediately came pouring in torrents. This flurry of cogitation led to the brilliant thesis that it’s not experience or the body or relationships with others, or any of the mushy-gushy sensuous stuff of life that makes the man – it’s his thought alone!
Sigh. Just… sigh.
[review 2016; originally read in 2008]
Dualism: the idea of separation, articulation, and demarcation, specifically into a binary framework, is the essential construct grounding “Western” progressive thought (kind of like binary mathematics is the language of digital machines; the parallel is not coincidental). The essence of dualism lies in making a distinction, differentiating between two. Such distinctions seem at first, superficially, to occur naturally in lived experience: night and day, woman and man, left and right, cold and hot, future and present; historically these differentiations have been embedded in habitual actions and ideas about morality: good and bad, moral and immoral. Upon closer inspection, of course, experience is not dual in the least: sex is not binary, our perception of space is constituted of more than directionality, while our experience of time is bound up in the present and encompasses both history (past) and hope (future). Yet dual interpretations of experience have reigned in our imaginations for thousands of years.
The Age of Reason. In its essence, dualistic thought makes distinctions; such distinctions constitute the mechanics of “Western” reason. Logical versus irrational thought, knowledge versus opinion, empirical fact versus experience: reason is born of and enabled by an intricate delineation of opposing forces, one of which is always considered superior: mind over body, logic over poetry, linear argument over cyclical interrogation. Thus at the core of dualism lies an inherent judgment, that one of the two is differentiated as inadequate, unnecessary, superfluous, or inferior. Knowledge wins over Meaning. Reason over Art. Mind over Body. Man over Woman. Analysis over Synthesis.
The dualism which punctures Western reason has furthered an almost compulsive race for the “truth” (versus semblance, or illusion); the truth is pursued through the collection of distinguishable facts, labeled “knowledge,” which is to be empirically verified, quantitatively measured, objectively classified, and so forth. In the classrooms of today, for example, this belief manifests as standards centered on collections of knowledge to be mastered, as quantitative measures of student progress and teacher effectiveness, and as the glorification of “cognitive” tasks over social, emotional, or bodied experiences. Dualism reigns at every level of our social, cultural fabric and material realities – it’s not just a philosophical remnant of a time long past.
Linear Time. Rational thought requires orderly linearity as it seeks to collect knowledge and use it to explain causes and effects; linearity implies that in following a course of action, one progresses towards a goal, end, or objective; as G. W. Hegel wrote, human history is constantly developing through conflict. This mode of temporal understanding is so embedded in our daily acts that it is difficult to imagine alternatives: we operate by the dictates of a 24 hour clock, 7 hour week, etc, we imagine career and educational “paths” which lead towards an ultimate goal, and we have come to see the course of life itself in a similar way.
The World as Mechanism: Closed Under Physics. The scientific revolution enabled by the articulation of linear reason, by the assumptions of progress, and by metaphors of knowledge as a collection of facts to be conquered, led increasingly throughout the late Renaissance years to paradigm shifts away from beliefs in the predestination of religion and towards an understanding of the nature of the world as predetermined by physical laws. Revolutionaries of the era proposed that the laws of the natural world were “closed under physics,” or able to explain any and all past, present, and future phenomena through their application; according to classical conceptions of science born in this period, “all matter acts according to predetermined and knowable laws unending material progress, communicated by media and consumption based culture” (See CA Bowers, Revitalizing the Commons: Cultural and Educational Sites of Resistance and Affirmation ).
The End: The World is Conquered
Only, of course it’s not, as phenomenologists, critical theorists, physicists, artists, etc etc have been attesting to in recent generations. YES dualism gave us technology, science, a way to shed religious fear in favor of scientific inquiry. BUT it also forgot so much along the way: the “other” (the body, the spirit, experience, art), an organic, non-mechanistic vision, purpose, meaning…
And all this WHY?!? (ok, the Greeks, and European history, but also, THIS BOOK).
At first, I began Discourse on Method in trepidation: for, after all, what if some of the ideas were indeed sound? What if I had spent my entire adult life attempting to correct and refute a construct that held up under scrutiny? But alas my fears were allayed within pages, when it became clear that Descartes is just about the least introspective person who ever lived.
It goes like this: Descartes thought and thought, and couldn’t find the answers sitting at his dingy desk in his small dark room. So he went out into the world. He “traveled… frequented people of various humors and conditions, gathered varied experiences.” And alas, he still couldn’t write anything down, he was so caught up in all the experience. So he said, to hell with this, and went home. Where thought immediately came pouring in torrents. This flurry of cogitation led to the brilliant thesis that it’s not experience or the body or relationships with others, or any of the mushy-gushy sensuous stuff of life that makes the man – it’s his thought alone!
Sigh. Just… sigh.
[review 2016; originally read in 2008]
January 10, 2017
Η πραγματεία αυτή, δημοσιευμένη στα 1637, στην καρδιά του Τριακονταετούς Πολέμου, από έναν άνθρωπο ασθενικό και φοβισμένο, αλλά και πεπεισμένο για την αλήθεια των συλλογισμών του (έχει τα πειράματά του πάνω από όλα και μια προπαρασκεύη από προηγούμενες μελέτες του επάνω στη φυσική επιστήμη) που υποφέρει καθώς η διάθεσή του για ησυχία και απομόνωση έρχεται σε κόντρα με την επιθυμία του να απελευθερώσει τον κόσμο από τον μεσαιωνικό σκοταδισμό και να τον παραδώσει ελεύθερο και λυτρωμένο από τα δεσμά του στο Φως της Επιστήμης. Ο τρόπος σκέψης του έρχεται σε ρήξη με την σχολαστική θεολογική παράδοση, κι όσο κι αν ορκίζεται στον Θεό του βασιλιά και της νταντάς του, στην πραγματικότητα, τον εκθρονίζει, για να θέσει τον Άνθρωπο, στο κέντρο του κόσμου. Κι αυτό. Αυτό συνιστά την ουσιώδη επανάσταση που άνθρωποι σαν τον Ντεκάρτ, έφεραν σε μια εποχή που η απόκλιση από τον κανόνα συνεπαγόταν με κάψιμο στην πυρά. Η πραγματεία χωρίζεται σε έξι μέρη και παρακάτω παραθέτω μια μικρή περίληψη του καθενός ξεχωριστά.
Πρώτο μέρος:
«Δεν αρκεί να έχει κανένας καλό μυαλό, το κυριότερο είναι να το χρησιμοποιεί καλά». Έτσι ξεκινάει την πραγματεία ο Ντεκάρτ. Αυτή είναι η έννοια της «ορθοφροσύνης» της «bon sens». Έτσι όλοι μας μοιραζόμαστε το λογικό, αλλά ανεξάρτητα από τις δυνατότητές μας, η αξία του συνίσταται στην καλή ή κακή χρήση που του κάνουμε. Το πνεύμα για την τελειοποίησή του ωστόσο χρειάζεται και άλλες ιδιότητες: φαντασία, μνήμη, ταχύτητα σκέψης. Αλλά το λογικό είναι ιδιότητα που αποδίδεται σε κάθε ανθρώπινο ον και αυτό ακριβώς μας διαχωρίζει από τα ζώα. Έτσι κάπως λοιπόν, επινόησε μια μέθοδο, συνισταμένη από ορισμένες «απόψεις» και «κανόνες», για την εύρεση της αλήθειας. Αυτήν την μέθοδο θέλει να την εκθέσει στην κρίση του αναγνωστικού του κοινού, για να βεβαιωθεί, αν όντως είναι ορθή γιατί όπως λέει και ο ίδιος «μπορεί να γελιέμαι κι ίσως να μην είναι παρά λίγος χαλκός και γυαλί αυτό που παίρνω για χρυσάφι και διαμάντια». Η αμφιβολία λοιπόν είναι η δεύτερη φύση κάθε φιλοσόφου, κάθε στοχαστή.
Οι σπουδές του, ομολογεί πως δεν τον βοήθησαν ιδιαίτερα «δεν είχα κερδίσει τίποτα άλλο, εχτός που είχα ανακαλύψει ολοένα περισσότερο την αμάθειά μου». Και εκθέτει με πικρία την ιστορία του πνεύματός του, τις επιστήμες που συνάντησε στην πορεία του (γλώσσες, ιστορία, μυθολογία, ρητορική, ποίηση, θεολογία, φιλοσοφία, νομική, ιατρική, μαθηματικά) όλες τις σπούδασε (εκτός από τις απόκρυφες που θεωρεί πως πρόκειται για ψεύτικα τεχνάσματα) και τελικά κατέληξε απογοητευμένος από όλες. Μια επιστήμη λοιπόν. Αναζητεί μια επιστήμη που να ικανοποιεί το πνεύμα του «μια επιστήμη που θα μπορούσε να βρεθεί μέσα μου ή και μέσα στο μεγάλο βιβλίο του κόσμου». Γι’ αυτό ρίχτηκε στα ταξίδια. Θέλησε να μελετήσει τα «ήθη των ανθρώπων». Κι εκεί όμως συνάντησε πολλά ψέματα και τότε συνειδητοποίησε πως ίσως πολλές από τις πεποιθήσεις που προέρχονται από το δικό του πολιτισμικό περιβάλλον μπορεί να είναι εξίσου «εξωφρενικές και γελοίες». Όταν όμως έχουμε ασπαστεί κάτι, όταν δεν μας διέπει το κριτ��κό πνεύμα της αμφιβολίας, όλα τα δεχόμαστε ως αληθινά και δεδομένα. Και κάποια μέρα, αποφασίζει να μελετήσει τον ίδιο του τον εαυτό. Να γίνει ο ίδιος, το αντικείμενο της διερεύνησής του. Αυτή η στροφή του Ντεκάρτ είναι η απαρχή μιας ανθρωπολογίας προορισμένης μέσα στους αιώνες που θα ακολουθήσουν να φέρει στο φως τις ιδιότητες και τα χαρακτηριστικά της ανθρώπινης φύσης, εξορίζοντας τον Θεό και την θεολογία από το κέντρο του ανθρώπινου στοχασμού. Κι αυτή ακριβώς η μικρή στροφή, αποτελεί τομή, στην ιστορία της σκέψης της ανθρωπότητας.
Δεύτερο μέρος:
Έτσι κάποια χειμωνιάτικη μέρα, στις αρχές του Τριακονταετούς πολέμου, σε ένα δωμάτιο με μια θερμάστρα, σκέφτεται πως τα ξένα έργα είναι πολύ δύσκολο να τα κάνουμε δικό μας κτήμα και πως μόνο να τα μπαλώνουμε μπορούμε, σε αντίθεση με εκείνα που αποτελούν αποκλειστικά δικό μας δημιούργημα. Οι τωρινές επιστήμες είναι τελικά ένα συνονθύλευμα από θεωρίες, πάνω στις οποίες κάποιος έρχεται να προσθέσει και δεν μπορούν να πλησιάσουν την αλήθεια. Και ίσως θα ήταν καλό, αντί να επισκευάζεις ένα παλιό σπίτι, κάνοντας προσθήκες, να το γκρεμίσει συθέμελα και να το χτίσεις ολάκερο από την αρχή. Χωρίς τις ξένες γνώμες και παρεμβολές, μονάχα με την δύναμη του λογικού. Θέλει λοιπόν να τα γκρεμίσει όλα μέσα του και να χτίσει εκ νέου «με το αλφάδι του λογικού». Δεν θέλει ωστόσο να αλλάξει την κοινωνία, δεν πρόκειται να συγκρουστεί με την καθεστηκυία τάξη, με τους θεσμούς και τις παραδόσεις. «Ποτέ ο σκοπός μου δεν απλώθηκε πέρα από το να προσπαθήσω να μεταρρυθμίσω τις ατομικές μου σκέψεις και να χτίσω πάνω σε έδαφος ολότελα δικό μου». Κι από όλες τις γνώμες διαλέγει να αναζητήσει την δική του «να καθοδηγηθώ μοναχός μου». Αναζητά λοιπόν μια μέθοδο που να έχει τα θετικά από τρεις επιστήμες, τη λογική, την γεωμετρία και την άλγεβρα αλλά χωρίς να πάσχει από τις εγγενείς τους αδυναμίες. Από τα παραγγέλματα της λογικής κρατάει μόνο τέσσερα:
• Να μη παραδέχομαι τίποτε άκριτα ως αληθινό.
• Να διαιρώ τις δυσκολίες, τόσο όσο χρειάζεται ώστε να τις επιλύω ευκολότερα.
• Να κατευθύνομαι βαθμηδόν από τα απλούστερα και ευκολότερα στα δυσκολότερα και συνθετότερα.
• Να απαριθμώ τα πάντα, ώστε να μη μου διαφεύγει το παραμικρό.
Από τα απλούστερα συνάγονται τα πολυπλοκότερα, και υπό την προϋπόθεση πως δεν θα παρεισφρήσει κάτι αναληθές στον συλλογισμό, θα μπορέσουμε να φτάσουμε στο τέλος στο ξεδίπλωμα κάθε αλήθειας όσο κρυμμένη ή απλησίαστη κι αν είναι αυτή. Ακριβώς όπως κάνουν και οι γεωμέτρες. Εξετάζουν σχέσεις και εντοπίζουν αναλογίες. Αυτό που όμως τον βοήθησε στα μαθηματικά, και του έδωσε τον τρόπο να λύνει με επιτυχία τα προβλήματα, τον τρόμαξε όταν πήγε να το εφαρμόσει στην φιλοσοφία. Γιατί εκεί τα πράγματα δεν είναι πάντα μετρήσιμα μεγέθη και υπολογίσιμα, γιατί εκεί όλα είναι περισσότερο συγκεχυμένα.
Τρίτο μέρος:
Έτσι μέχρι να αισθανθεί αρκετά ώριμος για το εγχείρημά του, αποφασίσει να επινοήσει μια «προσωρινή ηθική» για καθαρά «ατομική χρήση».
• Να κρατώ τα έθιμα και τις παραδόσεις και την θρησκεία που γαλουχήθηκα και όλα τα υπόλοιπα να προτιμώ τις μετριοπαθέστερες γνώμες.
• Να υποστηρίζω έμπρακτα τις επιλογές, σαν τον χαμένο μες στο δάσος που αντί να περιπλανιέται κάνοντας κύκλους προτιμότερο να κρατήσει μια ευθεία ρότα για να μπορέσει να φτάσει στο τέλος του δάσους. Κι όταν δεν ξέρω την σωστότερη γνώμη να διαλέγω την πιθανότερη.
• Αφού τίποτα στον κόσμο δεν είναι στην εξουσία μου σε αυτόν τον κόσμο, πέρα από τις σκέψεις μου συνεπώς όσα είναι έξω από την σφαίρα των δυνατοτήτων μου πρέπει να είναι πέρα από τη σφαίρα των επιθυμιών μου.
(σσ: Εδώ υπάρχει ένα απόσπασμα που έχω κυκλώσει από μια παλιότερη ανάγνωσή μου, δεν θα έπρεπε να ήμουν παραπάνω από 21 ετών: «Και πως την ανάγκη φιλοτιμία ποιούμενοι, καθώς λένε, δεν θα επιθυμούμε να είμαστε γεροί, όταν είμαστε άρρωστοι ή ελεύθεροι, όταν βρισκόμαστε στη φυλακή, περισσότερο από όσο επιθυμούμε τώρα να έχουμε κορμιά από ύλη άφθαρτη όσο τα διαμάντια ή φτερά για να πετούμε σαν τα πουλιά». Κι έξω από τον κύκλο έχω σημειώσει με μολύβι: «Τί βλακείες». Σήμερα -100 περίπου χρόνια μετά- καθώς ξαναδιαβάζω την φράση αυτή του Ντεκάρτ, συνεχίζω να οργίζομαι γιατί υποχρεώνομαι να ζω σε έναν κόσμο όπου, ως ουδέν μονιμότερον, η προσωρινή Καρτεσιανή ηθική μοιάζει να έχει γίνει καθεστώς).
• Να βρω την ιδανική ενασχόληση, δηλαδή την καλλιέργεια του λογικού και την αναζήτηση της αλήθειας. Γιατί είναι δυνατό έτσι, οι επιθυμίες μου να στραφούν γύρω από πράγματα εφικτά, αφού υπόκεινται αποκλειστικά στο δικό μου χέρι, όπως η απόκτηση των αγαθών που προκύπτουν από την απόκτηση της αρετής.
Αυτές είναι σκέψεις που κάνει ο Ντεκάρτ μέσα στην θαλπωρή της θερμάστρας του. Κι έπειτα δυναμωμένος από αυτές αποφασίζει να ταξιδέψει στον κόσμο. Και ταξιδεύει για εννιά ολάκερα χρόνια, στην Ιταλία, στη Γαλλία, στη Γερμανία, στην Ιταλία και επιδίδεται στο να αποβάλλει τις πλάνες και να διατηρεί μόνο όσα αποδεδειγμένα είναι αληθινά και ορθά. Και στο τέλος καταλήγει στην Ολλανδία και εκεί αποφασίσει να καταγράψει και να συνθέσει το φιλοσοφικό του σύστημα που απέκτησε μέσα από τις εμπειρίες του και όχι μέσα από την ανάγνωση των βιβλίων.
(Αυτό από μόνο του μπορεί να ακούγεται παράξενο ή αστείο, αλλά ένας περιοδεύων «θεατής» μέσα στην Ευρώπη του 17ου αιώνα, όπου έζησε ο Ντεκάρτ σίγουρα θα είχε να δει πολλά παράξενα και αλλόκοτα και απαράδεχτα και εντελώς αντίθετα προς τη λογική, να επικρατούν ως θέσφατα, ως κανόνες και ως παραδόσεις. Πόσο μάλλον σε περίοδο πολέμου. Ο Ντεκάρτ άλλωστε δεν σκοπεύει βάσει της προσωρινής ηθικής του να αλλάξει τον κόσμο, αλλά τον εαυτό του, συνεπώς σωπαίνει και στοχάζεται).
Τέταρτο μέρος:
Ξεκινάει με την υπόθεση πως έστω ότι τίποτα από όσα υπάρχουν στο νου δεν είναι περισσότερο αληθινά από εκείνα υπάρχουν στην φαντασία των ονείρων μας. Επειδή όμως κάτι πρέπει να είναι αληθινό συμπεραίνει πως σίγουρα ο εαυτός του υπάρχει, εφόσον ο εαυτός του παράγει όλες τις σκέψεις. Συνεπώς αναφέρει πως η πιο ακλόνητη αλήθεια υπάρχει στο «σκέφτομαι άρα υπάρχω». Κι αυτή η αλήθεια δεν σηκώνει την παραμικρή αμφιβολία. Κι από εκεί εξαρτά την ύπαρξη από την σκέψη, και προχωρεί σε έναν διαχωρισμό ανάμεσα στην ψυχή και το σώμα: «κι αν ακόμα το σώμα δεν υπήρχε διόλου, πάλι η ψυχή δεν θα έπαυε να είναι ό,τι είναι». Και κάπως έτσι οι πιο ξεκάθαρες ευδιάκριτες σκέψεις δεν μπορούν παρά να είναι οι αληθέστερες. Για παράδειγμα η ύπαρξη του Θεού. Το να σκέφτομαι περί ενός όντος τελειότερου από εμένα, σημαίνει αυτομάτως πως το ον αυτό είναι αληθινό. Η ιδέα της τελειότητας δεν πηγάζει από τον ίδιο. Ο ίδιος δεν είναι τέλειος. Συνεπώς κάποιο τέλειο Ον υπάρχει και είναι αυτό που του υποβάλλει την ιδέα της τελειότητας.
Ο Ντεκάρτ επιμένει στον διαχωρισμό ανάμεσα στην αίσθηση και στη νόηση. Θεωρεί την πρώτη ατελέστερη και τη δεύτερη πως υπερβαίνει τα πεπερασμένα όρια της φαντασίας, θεωρεί πως είναι εκείνη που οδηγεί σε συλλήψεις πέρα και έξω από τον υλικό κόσμο. Με τη νόηση μπορούμε να στοχαστούμε περί του Θεού και περί της ψυχής κι ας μην μπορούμε να αντιληφθούμε τον Θεό και την ψυχή με τις αισθήσεις. Και καταλήγει πως «ούτε η φαντασία, ούτε οι αισθήσεις μας μπορούν ποτέ να μας βεβαιώσουν για τίποτα αν δεν μεσολαβήσει η νόησή μας». Η ατέλειά μας είναι η αιτία που δεν σκεφτόμαστε ξεκάθαρα. Η τελειότητα του Θεού είναι η πηγή των ξεκάθαρων και διακριτών σκέψεων. Χωρίς αυτήν την τελειότητα, η πραγματικότητα δεν διαφέρει από το όνειρο.
Και για να αποφύγει τις συγχίσεις καταλήγει πως «είτε είμαστε ξυπνητοί, είτε κοιμισμένοι, πρέπει να πειθόμαστε μονάχα με την προφάνεια του λογικού μας», αν και στο ξύπνιο μας το λογικό δεσπόζει περισσότερο από όσο στα όνειρά μας. Κι έτσι μπορεί κάποιος με μεγαλύτερη ασφάλεια να διαχωρίσει την φαντασία από την πραγματικότητα.
Πέμπτο μέρος:
Με πολύ φόβο και αυτολογοκρινόμενος προκειμένου να μην εξοργίσει τους Ιησουίτες και τους απανταχού καθολικούς, αναφέρει πως με τη μέθοδό του μπόρεσε να εξηγήσει και να κατανοήσει διάφορα κοσμολογικά φαινόμενα (κίνηση της γης, του ήλιου, των πλανητών) χωρίς να απαρνηθεί την ύψιστη αρχή της τελειότητας του Θεού και των νόμων που αναμφίβολα ο ίδιος έχει θέσει, θέτοντας σε κίνηση τον κόσμο που δημιούργησε. Και όλα αυτά τα κατέγραψε σε μια πραγματεία.
(στο σημείο αυτό με εντυπωσίασε ιδιαίτερα ο φόβος τον Ντεκάρτ για την εκκλησία και τον βαθμό που αυτή κυριαρχούσε επάνω στη σκέψη των ανθρώπων, σαν μια αέναη απειλή).
Ο Θεός αυτός λοιπόν που έφτιαξε τον υλικό κόσμο, έφτιαξε από τα ίδια υλικά μέρη και τον άνθρωπο. Κι ως προς αυτό ο άνθρωπος δεν διαφέρει από τα υπόλοιπα δημιουργήματα. Αλλά ο Θεός πέρα από την υλική ψυχή, τον εμψύχωσε και με μία άλλη, μοναδική στον κόσμο μια «ψυχή λογική» που δεν παράγεται από την δύναμη της ύλης. Προχωρεί στην αναφορά της λειτουργίας του ανθρώπινου σώματος και στην μηχανική που διέπει την κυκλοφορία του αίματος. (αρτηρίες, φλέβες, κίνηση της καρδιάς, λειτουργία των πνευμόνων και στομαχιού, μυϊκό σύστημα κτλ). Και τελικά καταλήγει στον εγκέφαλο, ο οποίος σχηματίζει ιδέες που δημιουργούνται από τις αισθήσεις, τις οποίες τις παραλαμβάνει έπειτα η μνήμη και η φαντασία για να τις ανασυνθέσει. Η ικανότητα της ομιλίας διαχωρίζει τον άνθρωπο από τα ζώα και συνιστά μια προωθημένη μορφή έκφρασης της έλλογης σκέψης, όπου υπερβαίνει και στέκει επάνω από τους νόμους της μηχανικής, από όλα τα υπόλοιπα υλικά δημιουργήματα. Κι αφού η λογική ψυχή υπάρχει ξέχωρα και ανεξάρτητα από το σώμα συμπεραίνει πως δεν υπόκειται στο νόμο της φθοράς και πως είναι αθάνατη.
Έκτο μέρος:
Ενώ λοιπόν είχε έτοιμη την πραγματεία του να την δημοσιεύσει μαθαίνει την καταδίκη ενός άλλου (σσ. Εννοεί του Γαλιλαίου από την Ιερά Εξέταση) και σπεύδει να ακυρώσει το εγχείρημά του. Ωστόσο υπάρχει κάτι, ένα αίσθημα ευθύνης απέναντι στην διάδοση μιας γνώσης, την οποία περιγράφει ως «πρακτική φιλοσοφία» ικανής να κατασκευάζει μηχανές για το όφελος του ανθρώπου και να διασφαλίζει την ανθρώπινη υγεία (σσ. Κι όλα αυτά για να καταλήξουμε σήμερα στην Monsanto – Bayer; Αναρωτιέμαι, τί θα είχε να πει γι’ αυτό ο Καρτέσιος, αλλά φαίνεται πως η κάθε εποχή έχει τη δική της Ιερά Εξέταση τελικά). Κι αυτή η έγνοια του τον κάνει να αρθρώσει μια έκκληση:
«Να καλέσω τα άξια πνεύματα να προχωρήσουν παραπέρα, συμβάλλοντας, ο καθένας κατά την κλίση και τη δύναμή του, στα πειράματα που θα έπρεπε να γίνουν, και μεταδίνοντας επίσης στο κοινό όλα όσα μάθαιναν. Σε τρόπο που, αρχίζοντας οι τελευταίοι αποκεί που θα έχουν τελειώσει οι προηγούμενοι, κι ενώνοντας έτσι τις ζωές και τις εργασίες πολλών, να τραβήξουμε όλοι μαζί πολύ μακρύτερα απ’ όσο θα μπορούσε να προχωρήσει ο καθένας χωριστά».
Στη συνέχεια απολογείται επί μακρόν για την απόφασή του, παρ’ όλα αυτά να μη δημοσιεύσει την πραγματεία του, κάνει λόγο για την φιλοσοφία που διέπει τα πειράματά του και τις όποιες αντιδράσεις συνάντησε. Και την απόφασή του να συνοδεύει τούτον εδώ τον «Λόγο περί της Μεθόδου» με τρεις μικρές πραγματείες οι οποίες ελπίζει πως δεν θα προκαλέσουν προβλήματα «περί Διοπτρικής, Μετεώρων και Γεωμετρίας» πάνω στις οποίες εφαρμόζει την επιστημονική του μέθοδο.
Και καταλήγει στα περί γλώσσας:
«Κι αν γράφω γαλλικά, που είναι η γλώσσα του τόπου μου, κι όχι λατινικά, που είναι η γλώσσα των δασκάλων μου, το κάνω επειδή ελπίζω πως όσοι χρησιμοποιούν αποκλειστικά το φυσικό λογικό τους εντελώς άδολο, θα κρίνουν τις γνώμες μου καλύτερα από εκείνους που πιστεύουν μονάχα στα αρχαία βιβλία».
Και κλείνει λέγοντας για άλλη μια φορά, πως πάνω από όλα επιθυμεί να τον αφήσουν στην ησυχία του την οποία δεν την ανταλλάσσει ούτε με τη δόξα ολάκερου του κόσμου.
Αυτό το έργο ήταν τόσο ωραίο, και εκτός των άλλων αποδεικνύει πόσο χρήσιμες υπήρξαν οι θερμάστρες για την εξέλιξη της ανθρώπινης νόησης (με αφορμή το χιόνι που ρίχνει απόψε χαχαχα).
Πρώτο μέρος:
«Δεν αρκεί να έχει κανένας καλό μυαλό, το κυριότερο είναι να το χρησιμοποιεί καλά». Έτσι ξεκινάει την πραγματεία ο Ντεκάρτ. Αυτή είναι η έννοια της «ορθοφροσύνης» της «bon sens». Έτσι όλοι μας μοιραζόμαστε το λογικό, αλλά ανεξάρτητα από τις δυνατότητές μας, η αξία του συνίσταται στην καλή ή κακή χρήση που του κάνουμε. Το πνεύμα για την τελειοποίησή του ωστόσο χρειάζεται και άλλες ιδιότητες: φαντασία, μνήμη, ταχύτητα σκέψης. Αλλά το λογικό είναι ιδιότητα που αποδίδεται σε κάθε ανθρώπινο ον και αυτό ακριβώς μας διαχωρίζει από τα ζώα. Έτσι κάπως λοιπόν, επινόησε μια μέθοδο, συνισταμένη από ορισμένες «απόψεις» και «κανόνες», για την εύρεση της αλήθειας. Αυτήν την μέθοδο θέλει να την εκθέσει στην κρίση του αναγνωστικού του κοινού, για να βεβαιωθεί, αν όντως είναι ορθή γιατί όπως λέει και ο ίδιος «μπορεί να γελιέμαι κι ίσως να μην είναι παρά λίγος χαλκός και γυαλί αυτό που παίρνω για χρυσάφι και διαμάντια». Η αμφιβολία λοιπόν είναι η δεύτερη φύση κάθε φιλοσόφου, κάθε στοχαστή.
Οι σπουδές του, ομολογεί πως δεν τον βοήθησαν ιδιαίτερα «δεν είχα κερδίσει τίποτα άλλο, εχτός που είχα ανακαλύψει ολοένα περισσότερο την αμάθειά μου». Και εκθέτει με πικρία την ιστορία του πνεύματός του, τις επιστήμες που συνάντησε στην πορεία του (γλώσσες, ιστορία, μυθολογία, ρητορική, ποίηση, θεολογία, φιλοσοφία, νομική, ιατρική, μαθηματικά) όλες τις σπούδασε (εκτός από τις απόκρυφες που θεωρεί πως πρόκειται για ψεύτικα τεχνάσματα) και τελικά κατέληξε απογοητευμένος από όλες. Μια επιστήμη λοιπόν. Αναζητεί μια επιστήμη που να ικανοποιεί το πνεύμα του «μια επιστήμη που θα μπορούσε να βρεθεί μέσα μου ή και μέσα στο μεγάλο βιβλίο του κόσμου». Γι’ αυτό ρίχτηκε στα ταξίδια. Θέλησε να μελετήσει τα «ήθη των ανθρώπων». Κι εκεί όμως συνάντησε πολλά ψέματα και τότε συνειδητοποίησε πως ίσως πολλές από τις πεποιθήσεις που προέρχονται από το δικό του πολιτισμικό περιβάλλον μπορεί να είναι εξίσου «εξωφρενικές και γελοίες». Όταν όμως έχουμε ασπαστεί κάτι, όταν δεν μας διέπει το κριτ��κό πνεύμα της αμφιβολίας, όλα τα δεχόμαστε ως αληθινά και δεδομένα. Και κάποια μέρα, αποφασίζει να μελετήσει τον ίδιο του τον εαυτό. Να γίνει ο ίδιος, το αντικείμενο της διερεύνησής του. Αυτή η στροφή του Ντεκάρτ είναι η απαρχή μιας ανθρωπολογίας προορισμένης μέσα στους αιώνες που θα ακολουθήσουν να φέρει στο φως τις ιδιότητες και τα χαρακτηριστικά της ανθρώπινης φύσης, εξορίζοντας τον Θεό και την θεολογία από το κέντρο του ανθρώπινου στοχασμού. Κι αυτή ακριβώς η μικρή στροφή, αποτελεί τομή, στην ιστορία της σκέψης της ανθρωπότητας.
Δεύτερο μέρος:
Έτσι κάποια χειμωνιάτικη μέρα, στις αρχές του Τριακονταετούς πολέμου, σε ένα δωμάτιο με μια θερμάστρα, σκέφτεται πως τα ξένα έργα είναι πολύ δύσκολο να τα κάνουμε δικό μας κτήμα και πως μόνο να τα μπαλώνουμε μπορούμε, σε αντίθεση με εκείνα που αποτελούν αποκλειστικά δικό μας δημιούργημα. Οι τωρινές επιστήμες είναι τελικά ένα συνονθύλευμα από θεωρίες, πάνω στις οποίες κάποιος έρχεται να προσθέσει και δεν μπορούν να πλησιάσουν την αλήθεια. Και ίσως θα ήταν καλό, αντί να επισκευάζεις ένα παλιό σπίτι, κάνοντας προσθήκες, να το γκρεμίσει συθέμελα και να το χτίσεις ολάκερο από την αρχή. Χωρίς τις ξένες γνώμες και παρεμβολές, μονάχα με την δύναμη του λογικού. Θέλει λοιπόν να τα γκρεμίσει όλα μέσα του και να χτίσει εκ νέου «με το αλφάδι του λογικού». Δεν θέλει ωστόσο να αλλάξει την κοινωνία, δεν πρόκειται να συγκρουστεί με την καθεστηκυία τάξη, με τους θεσμούς και τις παραδόσεις. «Ποτέ ο σκοπός μου δεν απλώθηκε πέρα από το να προσπαθήσω να μεταρρυθμίσω τις ατομικές μου σκέψεις και να χτίσω πάνω σε έδαφος ολότελα δικό μου». Κι από όλες τις γνώμες διαλέγει να αναζητήσει την δική του «να καθοδηγηθώ μοναχός μου». Αναζητά λοιπόν μια μέθοδο που να έχει τα θετικά από τρεις επιστήμες, τη λογική, την γεωμετρία και την άλγεβρα αλλά χωρίς να πάσχει από τις εγγενείς τους αδυναμίες. Από τα παραγγέλματα της λογικής κρατάει μόνο τέσσερα:
• Να μη παραδέχομαι τίποτε άκριτα ως αληθινό.
• Να διαιρώ τις δυσκολίες, τόσο όσο χρειάζεται ώστε να τις επιλύω ευκολότερα.
• Να κατευθύνομαι βαθμηδόν από τα απλούστερα και ευκολότερα στα δυσκολότερα και συνθετότερα.
• Να απαριθμώ τα πάντα, ώστε να μη μου διαφεύγει το παραμικρό.
Από τα απλούστερα συνάγονται τα πολυπλοκότερα, και υπό την προϋπόθεση πως δεν θα παρεισφρήσει κάτι αναληθές στον συλλογισμό, θα μπορέσουμε να φτάσουμε στο τέλος στο ξεδίπλωμα κάθε αλήθειας όσο κρυμμένη ή απλησίαστη κι αν είναι αυτή. Ακριβώς όπως κάνουν και οι γεωμέτρες. Εξετάζουν σχέσεις και εντοπίζουν αναλογίες. Αυτό που όμως τον βοήθησε στα μαθηματικά, και του έδωσε τον τρόπο να λύνει με επιτυχία τα προβλήματα, τον τρόμαξε όταν πήγε να το εφαρμόσει στην φιλοσοφία. Γιατί εκεί τα πράγματα δεν είναι πάντα μετρήσιμα μεγέθη και υπολογίσιμα, γιατί εκεί όλα είναι περισσότερο συγκεχυμένα.
Τρίτο μέρος:
Έτσι μέχρι να αισθανθεί αρκετά ώριμος για το εγχείρημά του, αποφασίσει να επινοήσει μια «προσωρινή ηθική» για καθαρά «ατομική χρήση».
• Να κρατώ τα έθιμα και τις παραδόσεις και την θρησκεία που γαλουχήθηκα και όλα τα υπόλοιπα να προτιμώ τις μετριοπαθέστερες γνώμες.
• Να υποστηρίζω έμπρακτα τις επιλογές, σαν τον χαμένο μες στο δάσος που αντί να περιπλανιέται κάνοντας κύκλους προτιμότερο να κρατήσει μια ευθεία ρότα για να μπορέσει να φτάσει στο τέλος του δάσους. Κι όταν δεν ξέρω την σωστότερη γνώμη να διαλέγω την πιθανότερη.
• Αφού τίποτα στον κόσμο δεν είναι στην εξουσία μου σε αυτόν τον κόσμο, πέρα από τις σκέψεις μου συνεπώς όσα είναι έξω από την σφαίρα των δυνατοτήτων μου πρέπει να είναι πέρα από τη σφαίρα των επιθυμιών μου.
(σσ: Εδώ υπάρχει ένα απόσπασμα που έχω κυκλώσει από μια παλιότερη ανάγνωσή μου, δεν θα έπρεπε να ήμουν παραπάνω από 21 ετών: «Και πως την ανάγκη φιλοτιμία ποιούμενοι, καθώς λένε, δεν θα επιθυμούμε να είμαστε γεροί, όταν είμαστε άρρωστοι ή ελεύθεροι, όταν βρισκόμαστε στη φυλακή, περισσότερο από όσο επιθυμούμε τώρα να έχουμε κορμιά από ύλη άφθαρτη όσο τα διαμάντια ή φτερά για να πετούμε σαν τα πουλιά». Κι έξω από τον κύκλο έχω σημειώσει με μολύβι: «Τί βλακείες». Σήμερα -100 περίπου χρόνια μετά- καθώς ξαναδιαβάζω την φράση αυτή του Ντεκάρτ, συνεχίζω να οργίζομαι γιατί υποχρεώνομαι να ζω σε έναν κόσμο όπου, ως ουδέν μονιμότερον, η προσωρινή Καρτεσιανή ηθική μοιάζει να έχει γίνει καθεστώς).
• Να βρω την ιδανική ενασχόληση, δηλαδή την καλλιέργεια του λογικού και την αναζήτηση της αλήθειας. Γιατί είναι δυνατό έτσι, οι επιθυμίες μου να στραφούν γύρω από πράγματα εφικτά, αφού υπόκεινται αποκλειστικά στο δικό μου χέρι, όπως η απόκτηση των αγαθών που προκύπτουν από την απόκτηση της αρετής.
Αυτές είναι σκέψεις που κάνει ο Ντεκάρτ μέσα στην θαλπωρή της θερμάστρας του. Κι έπειτα δυναμωμένος από αυτές αποφασίζει να ταξιδέψει στον κόσμο. Και ταξιδεύει για εννιά ολάκερα χρόνια, στην Ιταλία, στη Γαλλία, στη Γερμανία, στην Ιταλία και επιδίδεται στο να αποβάλλει τις πλάνες και να διατηρεί μόνο όσα αποδεδειγμένα είναι αληθινά και ορθά. Και στο τέλος καταλήγει στην Ολλανδία και εκεί αποφασίσει να καταγράψει και να συνθέσει το φιλοσοφικό του σύστημα που απέκτησε μέσα από τις εμπειρίες του και όχι μέσα από την ανάγνωση των βιβλίων.
(Αυτό από μόνο του μπορεί να ακούγεται παράξενο ή αστείο, αλλά ένας περιοδεύων «θεατής» μέσα στην Ευρώπη του 17ου αιώνα, όπου έζησε ο Ντεκάρτ σίγουρα θα είχε να δει πολλά παράξενα και αλλόκοτα και απαράδεχτα και εντελώς αντίθετα προς τη λογική, να επικρατούν ως θέσφατα, ως κανόνες και ως παραδόσεις. Πόσο μάλλον σε περίοδο πολέμου. Ο Ντεκάρτ άλλωστε δεν σκοπεύει βάσει της προσωρινής ηθικής του να αλλάξει τον κόσμο, αλλά τον εαυτό του, συνεπώς σωπαίνει και στοχάζεται).
Τέταρτο μέρος:
Ξεκινάει με την υπόθεση πως έστω ότι τίποτα από όσα υπάρχουν στο νου δεν είναι περισσότερο αληθινά από εκείνα υπάρχουν στην φαντασία των ονείρων μας. Επειδή όμως κάτι πρέπει να είναι αληθινό συμπεραίνει πως σίγουρα ο εαυτός του υπάρχει, εφόσον ο εαυτός του παράγει όλες τις σκέψεις. Συνεπώς αναφέρει πως η πιο ακλόνητη αλήθεια υπάρχει στο «σκέφτομαι άρα υπάρχω». Κι αυτή η αλήθεια δεν σηκώνει την παραμικρή αμφιβολία. Κι από εκεί εξαρτά την ύπαρξη από την σκέψη, και προχωρεί σε έναν διαχωρισμό ανάμεσα στην ψυχή και το σώμα: «κι αν ακόμα το σώμα δεν υπήρχε διόλου, πάλι η ψυχή δεν θα έπαυε να είναι ό,τι είναι». Και κάπως έτσι οι πιο ξεκάθαρες ευδιάκριτες σκέψεις δεν μπορούν παρά να είναι οι αληθέστερες. Για παράδειγμα η ύπαρξη του Θεού. Το να σκέφτομαι περί ενός όντος τελειότερου από εμένα, σημαίνει αυτομάτως πως το ον αυτό είναι αληθινό. Η ιδέα της τελειότητας δεν πηγάζει από τον ίδιο. Ο ίδιος δεν είναι τέλειος. Συνεπώς κάποιο τέλειο Ον υπάρχει και είναι αυτό που του υποβάλλει την ιδέα της τελειότητας.
Ο Ντεκάρτ επιμένει στον διαχωρισμό ανάμεσα στην αίσθηση και στη νόηση. Θεωρεί την πρώτη ατελέστερη και τη δεύτερη πως υπερβαίνει τα πεπερασμένα όρια της φαντασίας, θεωρεί πως είναι εκείνη που οδηγεί σε συλλήψεις πέρα και έξω από τον υλικό κόσμο. Με τη νόηση μπορούμε να στοχαστούμε περί του Θεού και περί της ψυχής κι ας μην μπορούμε να αντιληφθούμε τον Θεό και την ψυχή με τις αισθήσεις. Και καταλήγει πως «ούτε η φαντασία, ούτε οι αισθήσεις μας μπορούν ποτέ να μας βεβαιώσουν για τίποτα αν δεν μεσολαβήσει η νόησή μας». Η ατέλειά μας είναι η αιτία που δεν σκεφτόμαστε ξεκάθαρα. Η τελειότητα του Θεού είναι η πηγή των ξεκάθαρων και διακριτών σκέψεων. Χωρίς αυτήν την τελειότητα, η πραγματικότητα δεν διαφέρει από το όνειρο.
Και για να αποφύγει τις συγχίσεις καταλήγει πως «είτε είμαστε ξυπνητοί, είτε κοιμισμένοι, πρέπει να πειθόμαστε μονάχα με την προφάνεια του λογικού μας», αν και στο ξύπνιο μας το λογικό δεσπόζει περισσότερο από όσο στα όνειρά μας. Κι έτσι μπορεί κάποιος με μεγαλύτερη ασφάλεια να διαχωρίσει την φαντασία από την πραγματικότητα.
Πέμπτο μέρος:
Με πολύ φόβο και αυτολογοκρινόμενος προκειμένου να μην εξοργίσει τους Ιησουίτες και τους απανταχού καθολικούς, αναφέρει πως με τη μέθοδό του μπόρεσε να εξηγήσει και να κατανοήσει διάφορα κοσμολογικά φαινόμενα (κίνηση της γης, του ήλιου, των πλανητών) χωρίς να απαρνηθεί την ύψιστη αρχή της τελειότητας του Θεού και των νόμων που αναμφίβολα ο ίδιος έχει θέσει, θέτοντας σε κίνηση τον κόσμο που δημιούργησε. Και όλα αυτά τα κατέγραψε σε μια πραγματεία.
(στο σημείο αυτό με εντυπωσίασε ιδιαίτερα ο φόβος τον Ντεκάρτ για την εκκλησία και τον βαθμό που αυτή κυριαρχούσε επάνω στη σκέψη των ανθρώπων, σαν μια αέναη απειλή).
Ο Θεός αυτός λοιπόν που έφτιαξε τον υλικό κόσμο, έφτιαξε από τα ίδια υλικά μέρη και τον άνθρωπο. Κι ως προς αυτό ο άνθρωπος δεν διαφέρει από τα υπόλοιπα δημιουργήματα. Αλλά ο Θεός πέρα από την υλική ψυχή, τον εμψύχωσε και με μία άλλη, μοναδική στον κόσμο μια «ψυχή λογική» που δεν παράγεται από την δύναμη της ύλης. Προχωρεί στην αναφορά της λειτουργίας του ανθρώπινου σώματος και στην μηχανική που διέπει την κυκλοφορία του αίματος. (αρτηρίες, φλέβες, κίνηση της καρδιάς, λειτουργία των πνευμόνων και στομαχιού, μυϊκό σύστημα κτλ). Και τελικά καταλήγει στον εγκέφαλο, ο οποίος σχηματίζει ιδέες που δημιουργούνται από τις αισθήσεις, τις οποίες τις παραλαμβάνει έπειτα η μνήμη και η φαντασία για να τις ανασυνθέσει. Η ικανότητα της ομιλίας διαχωρίζει τον άνθρωπο από τα ζώα και συνιστά μια προωθημένη μορφή έκφρασης της έλλογης σκέψης, όπου υπερβαίνει και στέκει επάνω από τους νόμους της μηχανικής, από όλα τα υπόλοιπα υλικά δημιουργήματα. Κι αφού η λογική ψυχή υπάρχει ξέχωρα και ανεξάρτητα από το σώμα συμπεραίνει πως δεν υπόκειται στο νόμο της φθοράς και πως είναι αθάνατη.
Έκτο μέρος:
Ενώ λοιπόν είχε έτοιμη την πραγματεία του να την δημοσιεύσει μαθαίνει την καταδίκη ενός άλλου (σσ. Εννοεί του Γαλιλαίου από την Ιερά Εξέταση) και σπεύδει να ακυρώσει το εγχείρημά του. Ωστόσο υπάρχει κάτι, ένα αίσθημα ευθύνης απέναντι στην διάδοση μιας γνώσης, την οποία περιγράφει ως «πρακτική φιλοσοφία» ικανής να κατασκευάζει μηχανές για το όφελος του ανθρώπου και να διασφαλίζει την ανθρώπινη υγεία (σσ. Κι όλα αυτά για να καταλήξουμε σήμερα στην Monsanto – Bayer; Αναρωτιέμαι, τί θα είχε να πει γι’ αυτό ο Καρτέσιος, αλλά φαίνεται πως η κάθε εποχή έχει τη δική της Ιερά Εξέταση τελικά). Κι αυτή η έγνοια του τον κάνει να αρθρώσει μια έκκληση:
«Να καλέσω τα άξια πνεύματα να προχωρήσουν παραπέρα, συμβάλλοντας, ο καθένας κατά την κλίση και τη δύναμή του, στα πειράματα που θα έπρεπε να γίνουν, και μεταδίνοντας επίσης στο κοινό όλα όσα μάθαιναν. Σε τρόπο που, αρχίζοντας οι τελευταίοι αποκεί που θα έχουν τελειώσει οι προηγούμενοι, κι ενώνοντας έτσι τις ζωές και τις εργασίες πολλών, να τραβήξουμε όλοι μαζί πολύ μακρύτερα απ’ όσο θα μπορούσε να προχωρήσει ο καθένας χωριστά».
Στη συνέχεια απολογείται επί μακρόν για την απόφασή του, παρ’ όλα αυτά να μη δημοσιεύσει την πραγματεία του, κάνει λόγο για την φιλοσοφία που διέπει τα πειράματά του και τις όποιες αντιδράσεις συνάντησε. Και την απόφασή του να συνοδεύει τούτον εδώ τον «Λόγο περί της Μεθόδου» με τρεις μικρές πραγματείες οι οποίες ελπίζει πως δεν θα προκαλέσουν προβλήματα «περί Διοπτρικής, Μετεώρων και Γεωμετρίας» πάνω στις οποίες εφαρμόζει την επιστημονική του μέθοδο.
Και καταλήγει στα περί γλώσσας:
«Κι αν γράφω γαλλικά, που είναι η γλώσσα του τόπου μου, κι όχι λατινικά, που είναι η γλώσσα των δασκάλων μου, το κάνω επειδή ελπίζω πως όσοι χρησιμοποιούν αποκλειστικά το φυσικό λογικό τους εντελώς άδολο, θα κρίνουν τις γνώμες μου καλύτερα από εκείνους που πιστεύουν μονάχα στα αρχαία βιβλία».
Και κλείνει λέγοντας για άλλη μια φορά, πως πάνω από όλα επιθυμεί να τον αφήσουν στην ησυχία του την οποία δεν την ανταλλάσσει ούτε με τη δόξα ολάκερου του κόσμου.
Αυτό το έργο ήταν τόσο ωραίο, και εκτός των άλλων αποδεικνύει πόσο χρήσιμες υπήρξαν οι θερμάστρες για την εξέλιξη της ανθρώπινης νόησης (με αφορμή το χιόνι που ρίχνει απόψε χαχαχα).
Read
February 10, 2022
"Dahası bana göre şu önerme, yani Düşünüyorum, öyleyse varım ya da mevcudum önermesinin doğruluğu o kadar kesin ve o kadar açıktı ki..."
(s.70)
Düşünüyorum öyleyse varım sözüyle meşhur olan filozof Descartes'in başyapıtı olarak kabul edilen Yöntem Üzerine Konuşma yazarın iki temel görüşü üzerine kurulu. Bunlardan ilki, kişinin her şeyden şüphe edebileceği lakin düşünen benliğinden şüphe edemeyeceği:
"Sonra dikkatle kim olduğuma baktım ve gördüm ki, bir bedenim olmadığını ve içinde bulunduğum bir dünya ya da bir yer olmadığını hayal edebildiğim halde, ben hiçbir şekilde kendimin varolmadığını hayal edemiyordum." (s.71)
İkinci temel görüş ise yöntemin önemi; kitaba da adını bu vermiş zaten:
"Fikir ayrılıklarımızın nedeni, bazılarımızın bazılarına göre daha üstün bir akılla donatılmış olması değil, yalnızca farklı yöntemlerle düşünmemiz ve dikkatimizi aynı şeylere yöneltmememiz. Sonuçta sadece deha sahibi olmak yetmez, önemli olan onu doğru şekilde kullanmaktır." (s.28)
Galileo'nun başına gelenlerden çok etkilenen filozofun kitabını bu minvalde nispeten sansüre uğratarak yazdığını düşünüyorum. Zaten Dünya adlı eserini de bu sebeple basmadığını kendisi de kitabın son bölümünde itiraf ediyor. İnsançocuğunun fikri olarak emekleme döneminden yürüme dönemine geçtiği bir zaman diliminin önemli isimlerinden olan Descartes felsefe okumalarında mutlaka uğranılması gereken bir durak.
M.B.
Düşünüyorum öyleyse varım sözüyle meşhur olan filozof Descartes'in başyapıtı olarak kabul edilen Yöntem Üzerine Konuşma yazarın iki temel görüşü üzerine kurulu. Bunlardan ilki, kişinin her şeyden şüphe edebileceği lakin düşünen benliğinden şüphe edemeyeceği:
"Sonra dikkatle kim olduğuma baktım ve gördüm ki, bir bedenim olmadığını ve içinde bulunduğum bir dünya ya da bir yer olmadığını hayal edebildiğim halde, ben hiçbir şekilde kendimin varolmadığını hayal edemiyordum." (s.71)
İkinci temel görüş ise yöntemin önemi; kitaba da adını bu vermiş zaten:
"Fikir ayrılıklarımızın nedeni, bazılarımızın bazılarına göre daha üstün bir akılla donatılmış olması değil, yalnızca farklı yöntemlerle düşünmemiz ve dikkatimizi aynı şeylere yöneltmememiz. Sonuçta sadece deha sahibi olmak yetmez, önemli olan onu doğru şekilde kullanmaktır." (s.28)
Galileo'nun başına gelenlerden çok etkilenen filozofun kitabını bu minvalde nispeten sansüre uğratarak yazdığını düşünüyorum. Zaten Dünya adlı eserini de bu sebeple basmadığını kendisi de kitabın son bölümünde itiraf ediyor. İnsançocuğunun fikri olarak emekleme döneminden yürüme dönemine geçtiği bir zaman diliminin önemli isimlerinden olan Descartes felsefe okumalarında mutlaka uğranılması gereken bir durak.
M.B.
August 10, 2015
دکارت، در بیست و دو سه سالگی، بیشتر مابعد الطبیعه ی خودش رو پی ریزی کرد که البته، خیلی هم مابعد الطبیعه نبود. بلکه فقط مقدمه ی مختصری بود تا از شک رها بشه و بتونه به علوم دیگه بپردازه. چرا که به قول خودش، مابعدالطبیعه مثل تنه ی درخته و علوم دیگه، مثل شاخه. تا این تنه در جای درستی ریشه نداشته باشه، شاخه ها بار نمی دن.
این رساله، شرح همون مابعدالطبیعه ای هستش که یک شب زمستانی، خمیده در کنار شومینه ساخته.
این رساله، شرح همون مابعدالطبیعه ای هستش که یک شب زمستانی، خمیده در کنار شومینه ساخته.
September 27, 2019
Discourse on the Methods by Rene Descartes
I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM) ........ if all the other objects which I had ever imagined had been in reality existent, I would have had no reason to believe that I existed; I thence concluded that I was a substance whose whole essence or nature consists only in thinking.
COGITO ERGO SUM is perhaps the most famous line ever written in all of philosophy. It is found about half-way through this treatise, which was published in 1637 and is surprisingly readable.
Descartes, of course, was one of the world’s greatest philosophers and mathematicians. For those interested in the philosophy of Descartes you will immediately notice the heavy emphasis on rationalizing. He was known as the Father of Rationalism after all. Descartes was also a scientist and there is an excellent chapter where he describes how the circulatory system works, but Descartes’ philosophical ideas are the most quotable and memorable.
For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it ......
My third maxim was to endeavor always to conquer myself rather than fortune, and change my desires rather than the order of the world, and in general, accustom myself to the persuasion that, except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power.
4 stars. I certainly enjoyed this short treatise. I am not very well read in philosophy but nevertheless it was reassuring to follow someone, with such a highly structured brain, puzzle through some deep philosophical problems. Perhaps I’d liken the experience to reading Origin of Species by Darwin. I’m a bit in awe.
I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM) ........ if all the other objects which I had ever imagined had been in reality existent, I would have had no reason to believe that I existed; I thence concluded that I was a substance whose whole essence or nature consists only in thinking.
COGITO ERGO SUM is perhaps the most famous line ever written in all of philosophy. It is found about half-way through this treatise, which was published in 1637 and is surprisingly readable.
Descartes, of course, was one of the world’s greatest philosophers and mathematicians. For those interested in the philosophy of Descartes you will immediately notice the heavy emphasis on rationalizing. He was known as the Father of Rationalism after all. Descartes was also a scientist and there is an excellent chapter where he describes how the circulatory system works, but Descartes’ philosophical ideas are the most quotable and memorable.
For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it ......
My third maxim was to endeavor always to conquer myself rather than fortune, and change my desires rather than the order of the world, and in general, accustom myself to the persuasion that, except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power.
4 stars. I certainly enjoyed this short treatise. I am not very well read in philosophy but nevertheless it was reassuring to follow someone, with such a highly structured brain, puzzle through some deep philosophical problems. Perhaps I’d liken the experience to reading Origin of Species by Darwin. I’m a bit in awe.
June 3, 2010
The Discourse on the Method is a fascinating book, both as a work of philosophy and as a historical document. Descartes lived and worked in a period that Thomas Kuhn would call a "paradigm shift": one way of thinking, one worldview, was slowly being replaced by another. Descartes's work, while part of the new paradigm, still has one leg in the old mode of thought.
The old, waning worldview was scholastic Aristotelianism. The Aristotelian paradigm had a conception of the mind, of knowledge, and of science that may seem very alien to us today, but this conception held sway over Western thought for about two thousand years.
According to the Aristotelian tradition, the mind proper—what is exclusively "inside the head"—is limited to reason and understanding. Sensory perception, imagination, will, and so on, make reference to things outside the mind and so are not purely mental. Rather, they are the link that connects us to the outside world. According to Aristotle, there is no distinction between what I perceive and what is "out there." Thus, sensory experience gives us direct and immediate knowledge of objects in the world.
Science, in this worldview, is a matter of taking the immediate evidence of sensory experience and deducing certain conclusions from it. The sensory experience is indubitable, and the deductions are logical, so all scientific knowledge is based on absolute certainty.
One of Descartes's most significant contributions to the scientific revolution is his conception of sensory experience, imagination, and will as being just as much subjective mental phenomena as reason and understanding. His systematic doubting questions how it is that we can be certain about what we perceive. Descartes draws a sharp distinction between what our senses report to us and what is "out there."
This re-conception of the mind shakes the foundations of Aristotelian scholasticism. If sensory experience is no longer self-evident, then we can no longer deduce certain scientific truths from these observations. Essentially, Descartes makes us sharply aware of what goes into a scientific observation. It is not a purely neutral and objective act of seeing the world as it is; it is an interpretive act that must be undertaken with great care and circumspection.
The scientific paradigm that we have today owes a great deal to Descartes. Today, we have taken Descartes's method one step further. Now, we conclude that we can never have absolute certainty in the sciences. All we can hope for are sound theories that are supported by careful observations.
Descartes himself does not reach this conclusion. To a large extent, he is still set on finding certainty. His search for certainty, beginning with the famous line "I am thinking, therefore I exist," has largely defined the course of a great deal of philosophy since his time. We can debate whether Descartes is right in having found certainty in this claim, and we can debate what kind of knowledge this is, but it seems clear that it is not a kind of knowledge that is applicable to science as a whole. In finding this certainty, Descartes hopes to rebuild science in the Aristotelian method of deduction from certain first principles. In hindsight, this effort may seem a bit misguided.
Though his philosophy of science may be a bit askew, the philosophical method Descartes uses in part four of the Discourse has proven extremely valuable. His method of skeptical doubt has raised important philosophical questions concerning how we can be certain of, or even know, anything at all. His re-conception of what the mind is has largely defined the shape of Western psychology and philosophy ever since. His assertion that he is essentially a thinking thing and that his mind is distinct from his body has also raised a number of important philosophical questions: what is my relationship with my mind? What is my relationship with my body? If they are distinct, what is the causal connection between the two? And so on. Effectively, Descartes frames the questions that have preoccupied what we now call "modern philosophy."
The turning point in Descartes's intellectual development occurred on November 10, 1619. He had attended the coronation of Ferdinand II in Frankfurt, and was returning to serve in the army of Maximilian of Bavaria. Due to the onset of winter, he holed himself up for a day, alone in a stove-heated room. With nothing else to occupy him, he set about thinking.
He first mused that accomplishments of single individuals are usually more perfect than group efforts. Cities and buildings are more beautiful when they are made according to a single plan than when they are patched together piecemeal. Similarly, laws are better when they come from a single mind than when they evolve gradually over time. Descartes cites God's law as an instance of this perfection. These musings suggest to him that a person is best served by following the guidance of his reason alone, and not letting his judgments be clouded by his appetites and by the opinions of others.
While it would be impossible to resolve the imperfections of a state or a body of sciences by tearing it all down and starting again from scratch, Descartes suggests that such a method is not quite as unreasonable on the individual level. He decided to let go of all his former opinions at once, and re-build them anew according the exacting standards of his own reason.
Descartes is very careful, first of all, to point out that this method is meant only on an individual level, and he strongly opposes those who would try to topple a public institution and rebuild it from the ground up. Second, he reminds us that he only wants to discuss his method with us; he is not telling us to imitate him. In particular, he notes that there are two types of people for whom this method would be unsuited: those who think they know more than they do and who lack the patience for such careful work, and those who are modest enough to think that they are more capable of finding out the truth if they follow a teacher. Descartes would count himself among this second group if he hadn't had such a number of teachers and embarked on so many travels as to realize that the opinions of even learned men vary greatly.
Before abandoning his former opinions entirely, Descartes formulates four laws that will direct his inquiry: First, not to accept anything as true unless it is evident; this will prevent hasty conclusions. Second, to divide any given problem into the greatest possible number of parts to make for a simpler analysis. Third, to start with the simplest of objects and to slowly progress toward increasingly difficult objects of study. Fourth, to be circumspect and constantly review the progress made in order to be sure that nothing has been left out.
An obvious starting place was in the mathematical sciences, where a great deal of progress and certain knowledge had been achieved by means of demonstration. Descartes found his work made considerably easier if, on the one hand, he considered every quantity as a line, and, on the other hand, developed a system of symbols that could express these quantities as concisely as possible. Taking the best elements of algebra and geometry, he had tremendous success in both these fields.
Before applying this method to the other sciences, Descartes thought it well to find some philosophical foundations for his method.
If we were to identify a starting point for modern philosophy, November 10, 1619 would be as good a date as any. We might pinpoint precisely the moment that Descartes resolved to cast all his former opinions into doubt. This process of methodological doubt is central to Descartes, and indeed to most of modern philosophy. The results Descartes achieves by employing this method of doubt are discussed in Part Four of theDiscourse, so we will comment on his method in greater detail there.
It is important, of course, that Descartes does not simply scrap everything he knows, or else he would have no guidance in rebuilding his knowledge. The four rules he lays out are meant as guidelines, so that he will be able to rely on them, and not on unnoticed prejudices. Descartes had initially collected twenty-one rules entitled Rules for the Direction of Our Native Intelligence in 1628, but left the manuscript unpublished. The four rules we find here can be read as a major abbreviation of that effort. Essentially, they demand that an inquiry proceed slowly and carefully, starting with basic, simple, self-evident truths, building toward more complex and less evident propositions.
Descartes assumes a certain kind of theory of knowledge that was pretty much unquestioned in his day. In modern philosophical language, we call this a foundationalist epistemology. It sees knowledge as built up from simple, self-evident propositions, to higher and more complex knowledge. The theory states that if we were to analyze any complex proposition, we could break it down into increasingly smaller, simpler pieces until we were left with simple, non-analyzable propositions. These basic propositions would be either self-evidently true or self-evidently false. If they were all true, then we would know that the original complex proposition was also true. Of course, there are different variations of foundationalist epistemology; for example, the epistemology will shift depending on how the analysis is supposed to take place or on what the basic propositions are supposed to look like. But the general idea can be applied to Descartes easily. Knowledge is built up like a skyscraper, with the higher, complex knowledge built on simple, sturdy foundations.
This is just one of a number of theories of knowledge that are batted about these days. Another theory that will come into play later in the Discourse is a coherentist epistemology, one that states that knowledge is more like a circle than a skyscraper. According to this theory, there is no foundational knowledge that is more basic than other knowledge. All knowledge fits together in such a way that it is internally coherent, but there is no fundamental self-evident proposition that is itself beyond doubt and that justifies all the other propositions. A statement is true because it is consistent with everything else we know to be true, not because it can be analyzed into simple parts.
The reason that a foundationalist epistemology seems natural to Descartes at this point is that this is the epistemology that philosophy had inherited from Aristotle. As we have noted already in other sections of this SparkNote, Aristotelian scientific method works according to a system of syllogism and demonstration, where complex truths are logically deduced from simpler ones. This method implies a theory of knowledge according to which complex truths are built upon simpler ones that serve as an unquestioned bedrock of knowledge.
It is significant that Descartes should choose mathematics to study according to this method. Mathematics has had far more success than any other field (except logic) with deductive reasoning. Math is built upon simple, self-evident axioms that are then used, along with some rules of inference, to derive proofs of more complex propositions.
Descartes is not only one of the greatest philosophers of the modern world, he is also one of its greatest mathematicians. His discussion of algebra and geometry alludes to his discovery of analytic geometry that brought those two fields together. Until Descartes, algebra and geometry were two totally separate fields of study. He invented the Cartesian co-ordinate system that every math student knows and loves. That's the co-ordinate system with the x-axis and the y-axis that allows you to plot lines and curves and whatever other shapes you please. Geometrical figures could be plotted onto the co-ordinate grid, and since every line and curve on the grid corresponds to an equation, geometrical figures can be expressed as equations. Geometrical figures become algebraic equations, and algebraic equations can be graphed as geometrical figures. This all seems pretty commonplace to us today, but if you try to imagine solving math problems without graphing anything you'll begin to understand the colossal contribution Descartes made to mathematics.
The old, waning worldview was scholastic Aristotelianism. The Aristotelian paradigm had a conception of the mind, of knowledge, and of science that may seem very alien to us today, but this conception held sway over Western thought for about two thousand years.
According to the Aristotelian tradition, the mind proper—what is exclusively "inside the head"—is limited to reason and understanding. Sensory perception, imagination, will, and so on, make reference to things outside the mind and so are not purely mental. Rather, they are the link that connects us to the outside world. According to Aristotle, there is no distinction between what I perceive and what is "out there." Thus, sensory experience gives us direct and immediate knowledge of objects in the world.
Science, in this worldview, is a matter of taking the immediate evidence of sensory experience and deducing certain conclusions from it. The sensory experience is indubitable, and the deductions are logical, so all scientific knowledge is based on absolute certainty.
One of Descartes's most significant contributions to the scientific revolution is his conception of sensory experience, imagination, and will as being just as much subjective mental phenomena as reason and understanding. His systematic doubting questions how it is that we can be certain about what we perceive. Descartes draws a sharp distinction between what our senses report to us and what is "out there."
This re-conception of the mind shakes the foundations of Aristotelian scholasticism. If sensory experience is no longer self-evident, then we can no longer deduce certain scientific truths from these observations. Essentially, Descartes makes us sharply aware of what goes into a scientific observation. It is not a purely neutral and objective act of seeing the world as it is; it is an interpretive act that must be undertaken with great care and circumspection.
The scientific paradigm that we have today owes a great deal to Descartes. Today, we have taken Descartes's method one step further. Now, we conclude that we can never have absolute certainty in the sciences. All we can hope for are sound theories that are supported by careful observations.
Descartes himself does not reach this conclusion. To a large extent, he is still set on finding certainty. His search for certainty, beginning with the famous line "I am thinking, therefore I exist," has largely defined the course of a great deal of philosophy since his time. We can debate whether Descartes is right in having found certainty in this claim, and we can debate what kind of knowledge this is, but it seems clear that it is not a kind of knowledge that is applicable to science as a whole. In finding this certainty, Descartes hopes to rebuild science in the Aristotelian method of deduction from certain first principles. In hindsight, this effort may seem a bit misguided.
Though his philosophy of science may be a bit askew, the philosophical method Descartes uses in part four of the Discourse has proven extremely valuable. His method of skeptical doubt has raised important philosophical questions concerning how we can be certain of, or even know, anything at all. His re-conception of what the mind is has largely defined the shape of Western psychology and philosophy ever since. His assertion that he is essentially a thinking thing and that his mind is distinct from his body has also raised a number of important philosophical questions: what is my relationship with my mind? What is my relationship with my body? If they are distinct, what is the causal connection between the two? And so on. Effectively, Descartes frames the questions that have preoccupied what we now call "modern philosophy."
The turning point in Descartes's intellectual development occurred on November 10, 1619. He had attended the coronation of Ferdinand II in Frankfurt, and was returning to serve in the army of Maximilian of Bavaria. Due to the onset of winter, he holed himself up for a day, alone in a stove-heated room. With nothing else to occupy him, he set about thinking.
He first mused that accomplishments of single individuals are usually more perfect than group efforts. Cities and buildings are more beautiful when they are made according to a single plan than when they are patched together piecemeal. Similarly, laws are better when they come from a single mind than when they evolve gradually over time. Descartes cites God's law as an instance of this perfection. These musings suggest to him that a person is best served by following the guidance of his reason alone, and not letting his judgments be clouded by his appetites and by the opinions of others.
While it would be impossible to resolve the imperfections of a state or a body of sciences by tearing it all down and starting again from scratch, Descartes suggests that such a method is not quite as unreasonable on the individual level. He decided to let go of all his former opinions at once, and re-build them anew according the exacting standards of his own reason.
Descartes is very careful, first of all, to point out that this method is meant only on an individual level, and he strongly opposes those who would try to topple a public institution and rebuild it from the ground up. Second, he reminds us that he only wants to discuss his method with us; he is not telling us to imitate him. In particular, he notes that there are two types of people for whom this method would be unsuited: those who think they know more than they do and who lack the patience for such careful work, and those who are modest enough to think that they are more capable of finding out the truth if they follow a teacher. Descartes would count himself among this second group if he hadn't had such a number of teachers and embarked on so many travels as to realize that the opinions of even learned men vary greatly.
Before abandoning his former opinions entirely, Descartes formulates four laws that will direct his inquiry: First, not to accept anything as true unless it is evident; this will prevent hasty conclusions. Second, to divide any given problem into the greatest possible number of parts to make for a simpler analysis. Third, to start with the simplest of objects and to slowly progress toward increasingly difficult objects of study. Fourth, to be circumspect and constantly review the progress made in order to be sure that nothing has been left out.
An obvious starting place was in the mathematical sciences, where a great deal of progress and certain knowledge had been achieved by means of demonstration. Descartes found his work made considerably easier if, on the one hand, he considered every quantity as a line, and, on the other hand, developed a system of symbols that could express these quantities as concisely as possible. Taking the best elements of algebra and geometry, he had tremendous success in both these fields.
Before applying this method to the other sciences, Descartes thought it well to find some philosophical foundations for his method.
If we were to identify a starting point for modern philosophy, November 10, 1619 would be as good a date as any. We might pinpoint precisely the moment that Descartes resolved to cast all his former opinions into doubt. This process of methodological doubt is central to Descartes, and indeed to most of modern philosophy. The results Descartes achieves by employing this method of doubt are discussed in Part Four of theDiscourse, so we will comment on his method in greater detail there.
It is important, of course, that Descartes does not simply scrap everything he knows, or else he would have no guidance in rebuilding his knowledge. The four rules he lays out are meant as guidelines, so that he will be able to rely on them, and not on unnoticed prejudices. Descartes had initially collected twenty-one rules entitled Rules for the Direction of Our Native Intelligence in 1628, but left the manuscript unpublished. The four rules we find here can be read as a major abbreviation of that effort. Essentially, they demand that an inquiry proceed slowly and carefully, starting with basic, simple, self-evident truths, building toward more complex and less evident propositions.
Descartes assumes a certain kind of theory of knowledge that was pretty much unquestioned in his day. In modern philosophical language, we call this a foundationalist epistemology. It sees knowledge as built up from simple, self-evident propositions, to higher and more complex knowledge. The theory states that if we were to analyze any complex proposition, we could break it down into increasingly smaller, simpler pieces until we were left with simple, non-analyzable propositions. These basic propositions would be either self-evidently true or self-evidently false. If they were all true, then we would know that the original complex proposition was also true. Of course, there are different variations of foundationalist epistemology; for example, the epistemology will shift depending on how the analysis is supposed to take place or on what the basic propositions are supposed to look like. But the general idea can be applied to Descartes easily. Knowledge is built up like a skyscraper, with the higher, complex knowledge built on simple, sturdy foundations.
This is just one of a number of theories of knowledge that are batted about these days. Another theory that will come into play later in the Discourse is a coherentist epistemology, one that states that knowledge is more like a circle than a skyscraper. According to this theory, there is no foundational knowledge that is more basic than other knowledge. All knowledge fits together in such a way that it is internally coherent, but there is no fundamental self-evident proposition that is itself beyond doubt and that justifies all the other propositions. A statement is true because it is consistent with everything else we know to be true, not because it can be analyzed into simple parts.
The reason that a foundationalist epistemology seems natural to Descartes at this point is that this is the epistemology that philosophy had inherited from Aristotle. As we have noted already in other sections of this SparkNote, Aristotelian scientific method works according to a system of syllogism and demonstration, where complex truths are logically deduced from simpler ones. This method implies a theory of knowledge according to which complex truths are built upon simpler ones that serve as an unquestioned bedrock of knowledge.
It is significant that Descartes should choose mathematics to study according to this method. Mathematics has had far more success than any other field (except logic) with deductive reasoning. Math is built upon simple, self-evident axioms that are then used, along with some rules of inference, to derive proofs of more complex propositions.
Descartes is not only one of the greatest philosophers of the modern world, he is also one of its greatest mathematicians. His discussion of algebra and geometry alludes to his discovery of analytic geometry that brought those two fields together. Until Descartes, algebra and geometry were two totally separate fields of study. He invented the Cartesian co-ordinate system that every math student knows and loves. That's the co-ordinate system with the x-axis and the y-axis that allows you to plot lines and curves and whatever other shapes you please. Geometrical figures could be plotted onto the co-ordinate grid, and since every line and curve on the grid corresponds to an equation, geometrical figures can be expressed as equations. Geometrical figures become algebraic equations, and algebraic equations can be graphed as geometrical figures. This all seems pretty commonplace to us today, but if you try to imagine solving math problems without graphing anything you'll begin to understand the colossal contribution Descartes made to mathematics.
April 9, 2024
برای حل مسالهای که تو ذهن داشتم سراغ کتاب رفتم و اگرچه پاسخ دکارت کمکی بهم نکرد، ولی حس میکنم حداقل سوالم برای خودم شفافتر شده و مساله رو بهتر میبینم. حداقل میدونم جواب سوالم چه چیزی نیست. تلاش دکارت و حرفهاش (با وجود ترس و لرزی که از کلیسا داره و این مدام در نوشتههاش مستتره) به نظرم خارقالعادهست. این کتاب رو میشه خوند و بحث از چیزهایی رو دید که امروز به راحتی در جهان علم و در ذهن هر دانشآموز مدرسهای هست، حال آنکه با تلاش امثالِ دکارت بوده که بنیانهای چنین مفاهیمی برای اولین بار پایهگذاری شدند.
October 17, 2025
کتاب خوب بود ها نه اینکه بد باشه اما یه نکته ای داشت که نتونستم نمره کامل بدم بهش، ۲ سوم کتاب فقط مقدمه بود و واقعا خیلی کم بود متن خود دکارت.
October 29, 2017
Descartes'ı hepimiz hayatımızın bir döneminde duymuşuzdur. Rasyonalizmin ve kartezyenciliğin kurucusu, modern batı felsefesinin babası olarak kabul edilen Descartes, başyapıtı olarak kabul edilen Yöntem Üzerine Konuşma'yı 1637 yılında yayımlamış. Gallilei'in başına gelenleri duyan Descartes, muhtemelen eserini bir miktar elden geçirip sansürlemiş. O ünlü "düşünüyorum öyleyse varım" (cogito ergo sum) önermesinin de bulunduğu bu kitapta kendi hayatından da özyaşamöyküsel bir kesit sunuyor kitabın başında ve kitabın sonunda da kalp/dolaşım sistemi ile ilgili bilimsel (tıbbi) bilgilere yer veriyor Descartes. İnsanı beden ve zihin olarak iki ayrı varlık olarak (kartezyen düalizm) ele alan Descartes, aklın varlığının baki olduğunu, bilimsel gerçeklere (ve Tanrı'nın varlığına da) akıl yoluyla ulaşılabileceğini ve şüphe edilen şeylerin gerçek kabul edilemeyeceğini savunuyor. Descartes, kitabında gerçek/şüphesiz bilgiye nasıl ulaşılabileceğini ve aşamalarını açıklıyor ve bunu "yöntem" olarak nitelendiriyor. Aslında Descartes, "tümevarım" yöntemini (basitten karmaşığa, küçükten büyüğe doğru vb.) savunuyor.
Yöntem Üzerine Konuşma'yı İhsan Oktay Anar'ın Puslu Kıtalar Atlası'nda külhanbeyi ağzıyla "Zagon Üzerine Öttürme" adıyla görüp merak etmiştim ve o zaman bu kitabı okumak aklıma düşmüştü ancak okumak şimdi nasip oldu. Descartes'ın fikirlerini merak ediyorsanız ve felsefeyle ilgileniyorsanız bu kitabı tavsiye edebilirim. Ben, Latinceden çevrilip diğer birkaç dildeki çevirisiyle karşılaştırılmış Alfa Yayınları baskısını okudum ve çevirisi oldukça anlaşılırdı ancak diğer yayınevlerinden yayımlanan baskıların çevirileri hakkında bilgim yok. Keyifli okumalar.
Yöntem Üzerine Konuşma'yı İhsan Oktay Anar'ın Puslu Kıtalar Atlası'nda külhanbeyi ağzıyla "Zagon Üzerine Öttürme" adıyla görüp merak etmiştim ve o zaman bu kitabı okumak aklıma düşmüştü ancak okumak şimdi nasip oldu. Descartes'ın fikirlerini merak ediyorsanız ve felsefeyle ilgileniyorsanız bu kitabı tavsiye edebilirim. Ben, Latinceden çevrilip diğer birkaç dildeki çevirisiyle karşılaştırılmış Alfa Yayınları baskısını okudum ve çevirisi oldukça anlaşılırdı ancak diğer yayınevlerinden yayımlanan baskıların çevirileri hakkında bilgim yok. Keyifli okumalar.
September 23, 2019
“Endeavor 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, and after we have tried, in respect of things external to us, to do our best, everything in which we do not succeed is absolutely impossible as far as we are concerned.”
November 30, 2019
گفتار در روش، پيشنهاد متدلوژي به جاي منطق صوري
اين كتاب را دكارت در سن 41 سالگي (1637) منتشر كرد و اگرچه اولين كتاب نوشته شده او در زمينه فلسفه نبود، ولي اولين كتاب منتشرشده او در زمينه فلسفه است.
1- اين كتاب بنا به ملاحظات زماني و تعصبات مذهبي، كتابي محافظه كارانه و مختصر صد صفحه اي است كه اصول اساسي فلسفه دكارت ، شرح و توضيح داده است.
2- توضيحات محمد علي فروغي، مترجم كتاب در طي كتاب "سير حكمت در اروپا" بسيار روشنگر و حتي خواندني تر از خود رساله دكارت است چرا كه دكارت بسيار خلاصه اشاره كرده و در نگاه اول بدون در نظر گرفتن مكاتبات بعدي، محتواي خود رساله خيلي چشمگير به نظر نمي رسد.
3- در نظر گرفتن شرايط تمدني كه دكارت در آن مي زيسته، به فهم بهنر فلسفه دكارت كمك مي كند. چرا كه فلسفه رياضي وار دكارت (آنطور كه خودش در نظر داشت باشد) تابعي از پيشرفت رياضي و نگاه مكانيكي زمانه خود است كه با توجه به پیشرفت شگفت دانش در آن زمان، نتايج حاصل از مكانيك جديد، يقيني و قطعي فرض مي شده است. دكارت از اختلافات فلسفي و فكري و ديني كه منتج به جنگهاي زيادي شده بود نتيجه گرفته بود كه فلسفه قدما يقيني نيست و گرنه اينقدر اختلاف وجود نداشت.
4- بنا بر گفته كاپلستون، ظاهرا دكارت از فلسفه مدرسي (ادامه فلسفه افلاطون و ارسطو) به صورت كامل اطلاع نداشته و يا مطالعه عميق از منابع دسته اول نداشته است. به همين دليل دكارت فارغ از تفكرات فلاسفه قبلي روشي كاملا جديد بنا نموده است كه البته تاثير بسيار عميقي بر فلاسفه بعدي خود و در تمدن غرب گذاشت، ولي مابعدالطبيعه دكارت، مورد مناقشه زيادي قرار گرفت.
5- سنت گرايان معاصر، (مانند رنه گنون و سيد حسين نصر)، فلسفه دكارت رو نقطه شروع انحراف تفكر غرب و شروع مدرنيته مي دانند كه فارغ از صحت ادعاي ايشان، به نوعي اعتراف به تاثير و عظمت دكارت است كه بناي عظيم فكر خودش را از صفر پايه گذاشت و به گذشتگان چندان اعتنا نكرد.
6- خلاصه خام فكر فلسفي دكارت به شرح ذيل است.
الف. منطق صوري، علي رغم مزاياي زيادي كه دارد باعث بوجودآمدن اطلاعات جديد نمي شود، به همين دليل متدولوژي (منطق عملي يا روش تجزيه و تركيب - شبيه آنچه دكارت از هندسه تحليلي ابداع كرده بود-) رو با چند قاعده به عنوان جايگزين منطق صوري پيشنهاد كرد.
ب: متدولوژي با پيشنهاد روشي براي فكر كردن و نتيجه گرفتن، براي شروع نياز به حقايق يقيني دارد. اين حقايق يقيني را دكارت با استفاده از روش شك دستوري يا مصلحتي و رسيدن به جمله "من هستم پس مي انديشم" بوجود آورد. در واقع هر چه به صورت عقلي (حضوري -در درون-) به صورت واضح و متمايز درك شود (به گفته دكارت به شرطي كه درون خود را از شهوات پاك كرده باشي) را مي توان به عنوان پايه قرار داد و با اعمال متدولوژي بر اين مباني، به نتايج يقيني بعدي دست يافت كه خود مي تواند به عنوان پايه نتايج بعدي تر مورد استفاده قرار گيرد. تعداد اين حق��يق و بسائط پايه اي زياد نيست و دكارت با توجه به اصول رياضي فكر مي كرد كه به مانند رياضي، هر چه اصول موضوعي اوليه كمتر باشد، نظام فلسفي منسجم تري ساخته خواهد شد.
اين كتاب را دكارت در سن 41 سالگي (1637) منتشر كرد و اگرچه اولين كتاب نوشته شده او در زمينه فلسفه نبود، ولي اولين كتاب منتشرشده او در زمينه فلسفه است.
1- اين كتاب بنا به ملاحظات زماني و تعصبات مذهبي، كتابي محافظه كارانه و مختصر صد صفحه اي است كه اصول اساسي فلسفه دكارت ، شرح و توضيح داده است.
2- توضيحات محمد علي فروغي، مترجم كتاب در طي كتاب "سير حكمت در اروپا" بسيار روشنگر و حتي خواندني تر از خود رساله دكارت است چرا كه دكارت بسيار خلاصه اشاره كرده و در نگاه اول بدون در نظر گرفتن مكاتبات بعدي، محتواي خود رساله خيلي چشمگير به نظر نمي رسد.
3- در نظر گرفتن شرايط تمدني كه دكارت در آن مي زيسته، به فهم بهنر فلسفه دكارت كمك مي كند. چرا كه فلسفه رياضي وار دكارت (آنطور كه خودش در نظر داشت باشد) تابعي از پيشرفت رياضي و نگاه مكانيكي زمانه خود است كه با توجه به پیشرفت شگفت دانش در آن زمان، نتايج حاصل از مكانيك جديد، يقيني و قطعي فرض مي شده است. دكارت از اختلافات فلسفي و فكري و ديني كه منتج به جنگهاي زيادي شده بود نتيجه گرفته بود كه فلسفه قدما يقيني نيست و گرنه اينقدر اختلاف وجود نداشت.
4- بنا بر گفته كاپلستون، ظاهرا دكارت از فلسفه مدرسي (ادامه فلسفه افلاطون و ارسطو) به صورت كامل اطلاع نداشته و يا مطالعه عميق از منابع دسته اول نداشته است. به همين دليل دكارت فارغ از تفكرات فلاسفه قبلي روشي كاملا جديد بنا نموده است كه البته تاثير بسيار عميقي بر فلاسفه بعدي خود و در تمدن غرب گذاشت، ولي مابعدالطبيعه دكارت، مورد مناقشه زيادي قرار گرفت.
5- سنت گرايان معاصر، (مانند رنه گنون و سيد حسين نصر)، فلسفه دكارت رو نقطه شروع انحراف تفكر غرب و شروع مدرنيته مي دانند كه فارغ از صحت ادعاي ايشان، به نوعي اعتراف به تاثير و عظمت دكارت است كه بناي عظيم فكر خودش را از صفر پايه گذاشت و به گذشتگان چندان اعتنا نكرد.
6- خلاصه خام فكر فلسفي دكارت به شرح ذيل است.
الف. منطق صوري، علي رغم مزاياي زيادي كه دارد باعث بوجودآمدن اطلاعات جديد نمي شود، به همين دليل متدولوژي (منطق عملي يا روش تجزيه و تركيب - شبيه آنچه دكارت از هندسه تحليلي ابداع كرده بود-) رو با چند قاعده به عنوان جايگزين منطق صوري پيشنهاد كرد.
ب: متدولوژي با پيشنهاد روشي براي فكر كردن و نتيجه گرفتن، براي شروع نياز به حقايق يقيني دارد. اين حقايق يقيني را دكارت با استفاده از روش شك دستوري يا مصلحتي و رسيدن به جمله "من هستم پس مي انديشم" بوجود آورد. در واقع هر چه به صورت عقلي (حضوري -در درون-) به صورت واضح و متمايز درك شود (به گفته دكارت به شرطي كه درون خود را از شهوات پاك كرده باشي) را مي توان به عنوان پايه قرار داد و با اعمال متدولوژي بر اين مباني، به نتايج يقيني بعدي دست يافت كه خود مي تواند به عنوان پايه نتايج بعدي تر مورد استفاده قرار گيرد. تعداد اين حق��يق و بسائط پايه اي زياد نيست و دكارت با توجه به اصول رياضي فكر مي كرد كه به مانند رياضي، هر چه اصول موضوعي اوليه كمتر باشد، نظام فلسفي منسجم تري ساخته خواهد شد.
July 20, 2016
ما رأيي بالكتاب؟ هل أنت مهتم؟ اقرأ معي إذًا:
يا إخوتي، هأنذا، بعد عمري كله، وبعد ما عايشته. وخبرته، وعلمت من التجارب، والشواهد، والأدلة، ما يؤكد كلامي ورأيي، وأؤكد لكم، بل وأكاد أتيقن، وأجزم، وأقطع، أن رأيي، الذي أقول به، وأعتقده، لهو صحيح، وكل هذا، لا يرجع، فقط، لكوني عايشته، وخبرته، ولكن لكوني متأكدًا، من داخلي، بأن لي رأيًا، تدعمه الشواهد والأدلة القاطعة، والتي لا شك فيها ولا مراء، بأن الله موجود، وبأني موجود وبأن الله حق، وبأنه عادل، وليس بشرير، وليس بمخادع، وليس بأحمق ولا ظالم ولا مهووس، وكل ذلك، بالطبع، يرجع، لعدة أدلة، قد بينتها من قبل، ولا أحب أن أعيد فيهاوكلامي مجددًا، ولكنها أدلة قوية، ويقينية، ولا يشكك فيها غير جاهل، أو متجن، أو أحمق، أو مدع للعلم، وكل هذه الأدلة، هي أدل حلوة، وكويسة، وجميلة�� وبأن الله موجود، والنور موجود، والعالم، بالطبع موجود، ونفسي موجودة، وزين الدين زيدان، موجود، وإن لم يتسع الكلام الآن، للحديث عن ذلك باستطراد، وبعرض تام للأدلة، ولكنها، على كل حال، أدلة يقينية، لا يشكك فيها إلا الجهال، والمتجنين، ومدعي المعرفة الكذبة، ولكن أنا على حق، وقد رأيت من الشواهد نواهد، ولكني، مكسّل، وبصراحة، أن أوردها في أي من كتبي، لكنها موجودة، وسوف أعرضها في الفصل القادم من كتابي، ولكنها موجودة، لكني أنأى بنفسي عن كتابتها، لما قد يؤول لي من بعد وفاتي من تحريف لكلماتي، أو تحريف لأفكاري، أو تقوّل عليّ، ولما قد يحدث لي من اضطهاد أثناء حياتي، لذا، قد قررت، أن أتحدث كثيرًا، على مدى أربعمئة صفحة، دون أن أضع أيًا منهم، لكن مع الحديث عن كونهم موجودين، وعن المربع، والمثلث، والمستطيل، وبالطبع، الهندسة، دون أن أوضح غرضي، حقيقة، من ذكرهم، ولكن لإعطائكم نبذة فلسفتي الرياضية، والتي تؤكد أن الله موجود، لكني، مع ذلك، لن أقول، كيف، ولم، وعلام، وإلام أرمي. وليس هذا راجعًا لكوني منافق أو جبان، لكن لأني، وبصراحة، مليش مزاج، لإن العوام أنعام، لا يعقلون، ولأني لا أريد أن أخرجهم من عاميتهم
والسلام.
هذا هو عين ما فعله ديكارت. هل فهمت شيئًا؟ لا. بالظبط. هذا هو ما فعله، مقدمات، ونتائج، ومغالطات، واستنباطات، لا تدري صدقًا علاقتها ببعضها البعض. رحمه الله على كل حال، دخل في مستنقع الميتافيزيقا، بقارب مثلوم، لكن بذراعين قويتين، وظن أنهما كفيلتين (أو كفيلتان) بأن ينجياه، لكنه وجد نفسه يسبح بجسده ويبتلع كل القاذورات، دون أن تنجيه قوته.
سيئ على كل حال
يا إخوتي، هأنذا، بعد عمري كله، وبعد ما عايشته. وخبرته، وعلمت من التجارب، والشواهد، والأدلة، ما يؤكد كلامي ورأيي، وأؤكد لكم، بل وأكاد أتيقن، وأجزم، وأقطع، أن رأيي، الذي أقول به، وأعتقده، لهو صحيح، وكل هذا، لا يرجع، فقط، لكوني عايشته، وخبرته، ولكن لكوني متأكدًا، من داخلي، بأن لي رأيًا، تدعمه الشواهد والأدلة القاطعة، والتي لا شك فيها ولا مراء، بأن الله موجود، وبأني موجود وبأن الله حق، وبأنه عادل، وليس بشرير، وليس بمخادع، وليس بأحمق ولا ظالم ولا مهووس، وكل ذلك، بالطبع، يرجع، لعدة أدلة، قد بينتها من قبل، ولا أحب أن أعيد فيهاوكلامي مجددًا، ولكنها أدلة قوية، ويقينية، ولا يشكك فيها غير جاهل، أو متجن، أو أحمق، أو مدع للعلم، وكل هذه الأدلة، هي أدل حلوة، وكويسة، وجميلة�� وبأن الله موجود، والنور موجود، والعالم، بالطبع موجود، ونفسي موجودة، وزين الدين زيدان، موجود، وإن لم يتسع الكلام الآن، للحديث عن ذلك باستطراد، وبعرض تام للأدلة، ولكنها، على كل حال، أدلة يقينية، لا يشكك فيها إلا الجهال، والمتجنين، ومدعي المعرفة الكذبة، ولكن أنا على حق، وقد رأيت من الشواهد نواهد، ولكني، مكسّل، وبصراحة، أن أوردها في أي من كتبي، لكنها موجودة، وسوف أعرضها في الفصل القادم من كتابي، ولكنها موجودة، لكني أنأى بنفسي عن كتابتها، لما قد يؤول لي من بعد وفاتي من تحريف لكلماتي، أو تحريف لأفكاري، أو تقوّل عليّ، ولما قد يحدث لي من اضطهاد أثناء حياتي، لذا، قد قررت، أن أتحدث كثيرًا، على مدى أربعمئة صفحة، دون أن أضع أيًا منهم، لكن مع الحديث عن كونهم موجودين، وعن المربع، والمثلث، والمستطيل، وبالطبع، الهندسة، دون أن أوضح غرضي، حقيقة، من ذكرهم، ولكن لإعطائكم نبذة فلسفتي الرياضية، والتي تؤكد أن الله موجود، لكني، مع ذلك، لن أقول، كيف، ولم، وعلام، وإلام أرمي. وليس هذا راجعًا لكوني منافق أو جبان، لكن لأني، وبصراحة، مليش مزاج، لإن العوام أنعام، لا يعقلون، ولأني لا أريد أن أخرجهم من عاميتهم
والسلام.
هذا هو عين ما فعله ديكارت. هل فهمت شيئًا؟ لا. بالظبط. هذا هو ما فعله، مقدمات، ونتائج، ومغالطات، واستنباطات، لا تدري صدقًا علاقتها ببعضها البعض. رحمه الله على كل حال، دخل في مستنقع الميتافيزيقا، بقارب مثلوم، لكن بذراعين قويتين، وظن أنهما كفيلتين (أو كفيلتان) بأن ينجياه، لكنه وجد نفسه يسبح بجسده ويبتلع كل القاذورات، دون أن تنجيه قوته.
سيئ على كل حال
May 15, 2021
No quedé muy satisfecho con este discurso, las 4 normas universales sería lo único que rescato (por que mi carrera se basa en ellas). De resto me pareció leer a un resentido y sin embargo egolatra y engreído que se creía dueño de la verdad.
En cuanto a su discurso sobre la razón y las ideas mi senda definitivamente es la de John Locke.
Con respecto a su respeto y la forma como baja la cabeza con la religión me pareció de lo mas aborrecible, mas tomando en cuenta las consecuencias que Galileo Galilei tuvo que pagar por demostrar que la iglesia estaba equivocada ( y Rene lo sabía)
Este discurso toco partes personales que influyen en mi calificación y por eso no creo que pueda llegar a ser igual de malo para los demás.
En cuanto a su discurso sobre la razón y las ideas mi senda definitivamente es la de John Locke.
Con respecto a su respeto y la forma como baja la cabeza con la religión me pareció de lo mas aborrecible, mas tomando en cuenta las consecuencias que Galileo Galilei tuvo que pagar por demostrar que la iglesia estaba equivocada ( y Rene lo sabía)
Este discurso toco partes personales que influyen en mi calificación y por eso no creo que pueda llegar a ser igual de malo para los demás.
March 25, 2016
مراجعة كتاب “ حديث الطريقة “ للفيلسوف الفرنسي رينيه ديكارت
هذا الكتاب هو أول كتاب أقرأه لديكارت ، بعد أن قرأت عنه كثيراً هنا و هناك ، و لكني كنت قد آليت على نفسي ألا أقرأ للفلاسفة إلا من كتبهم و أتجنب أي سرد أو تلخيص أو شرح لفكرهم و نتاجهم و ذلك بعد سماع نصيحة شوبنهاور، و إني لأعتقد أن هذه النصيحة قد فادتني كثيراً في نظرتي للكثير من الأمور ، فنحن كثيراً ما نسمع عن مذهب فكري معين و ديانة معينة و نحكم عليها قبل أن نرجع لنتاجات أصحابها و نتأملها جيداً و من ثم نحكم عليها.
و لم يكن كتاب ديكارت بمنأى عن هذه القاعدة ، فلطالما سمعت عنه أقوالاً لم تكن كثيراً منها دقيقة.
و في هذا الكتاب الذي يسميه ديكارت “ حديث الطريقة” يقدمه على أنه طريقته الخاصة به في تأمل الأمور و في فلسفتها و أن هذا العمل ليس موجهاً ليكون مثالاً للآخرين في كيف يجب أن تكون طرائقهم الخاصة ، إلا اللهم من باب مشاركة الآخرين بهذه الطريقة التي سار عليها ديكارت نفسه.
و لأجل هذا التأمل انعزل ديكارت الخلق و مارس تأملاته الفريدة التي بدأها في نسف جميع المُسَلَمات و القواعد و البراهين : دينية كانت أم فلسفية أو هندسية رياضية ، ليبدأ بعدها - كما يقول- بناء بيتٍ جديدٍ بعد هدم البيت الفكري القائم ، فيشك في كل شيء ، و عندما لا يبقى شيئاً يشكُ فيه ، يصل لنفسه التي شكَّت و فكرت فيستدل أن لديه نفساً و ذاتاً موجودة هي التي قامت بعملية الشك و التفكير فيعتبر وجود الذات هو أول فكرة يسلَّم بها في فلسفته و منها ينطلق لبقية المسائل.
و من خلال وجود فكرة الكمال داخل ذهنه يستدل على وجود إله خالق قادر عليم كامل أودع في أذهاننا فكرة الكمال و لو لا وجود هذا الاله لما كانت هذه الفكرة موجودة. و يعرج على انتقاد الثقة المطلقة بالحواس ضارباً عدة أمثلة من حقيقة أحجام الأجرام السماوية و بين ما نراها عليه من حجم تصوره لنا حواسنا، فاتحاً المجال للثقة أكثر بالميتافيزيقيا التي ينتقد من لا يؤمنون بها : كيف لهم أن يفرقوا بين حقيقة الأفكار التي تأتيهم وقت اليقظة و تلك التي تأتيهم إبان النوم أيهما أشد وثوقاً من الأخرى.
ينتقل بعد ذلك لوصف بيولوجي دقيق لجسم الانسان و بالتحديد القلب و كيفية تشريحه و كيفية عمله و الشرايين التي يحتوي عليها و الأوردة المنظمة لعمله ، مستعرضاً التعقيدات العديدة في أجهزة الانسان و كيف أن القلب بما فيه من حرارة هو مصدر الحياة الأول الذي يمد كامل الجسم بما يحتاجه.
و من القلب ينتقل للاستنتاج على تجرد النفس و استقلاليتها عن الجسد و على بقاءها بعد الموت و على العالم الاخر.
و اللطيف في فقرة من فقرات الكتاب أنه يطير بتصوره للآلة التي يمكن أن تتحدث و تصيح و تعمل وفقاً للبرمجة البشرية، مما يجعلك تنتبه إلى أنه يصف الروبوت في تحليق للخيال سابق للزمن.
بعد ذلك يدعو عوضاً عن الاكتفاء بالفلسفة النظرية لإيجاد فلسفة أخرى يسميها “فلسفة عملية” تساعد الانسان على تسخير عوامل الطبيعة بحيث يكون الانسان سيد الطبيعة و يسخر ذلك الاستغلال لزيادة راحته و صفاء مزاجه.
يخصص القسم الأخير للتحدث عن نشر كتابه و عن سبب اختياره للغة الفرنسية -العامية آنذاك - لكتابته عوضاً عن اللاتيتية الرسمية و ذلك لكي يصل إلى أكبر عدد من الجمهور و لا ينحصر في طبقة المثقفين فقط.
كتاب رائع جداً و أنصح به.
Αωαςhι
٢٥ آذار ٢٠١٦
هذا الكتاب هو أول كتاب أقرأه لديكارت ، بعد أن قرأت عنه كثيراً هنا و هناك ، و لكني كنت قد آليت على نفسي ألا أقرأ للفلاسفة إلا من كتبهم و أتجنب أي سرد أو تلخيص أو شرح لفكرهم و نتاجهم و ذلك بعد سماع نصيحة شوبنهاور، و إني لأعتقد أن هذه النصيحة قد فادتني كثيراً في نظرتي للكثير من الأمور ، فنحن كثيراً ما نسمع عن مذهب فكري معين و ديانة معينة و نحكم عليها قبل أن نرجع لنتاجات أصحابها و نتأملها جيداً و من ثم نحكم عليها.
و لم يكن كتاب ديكارت بمنأى عن هذه القاعدة ، فلطالما سمعت عنه أقوالاً لم تكن كثيراً منها دقيقة.
و في هذا الكتاب الذي يسميه ديكارت “ حديث الطريقة” يقدمه على أنه طريقته الخاصة به في تأمل الأمور و في فلسفتها و أن هذا العمل ليس موجهاً ليكون مثالاً للآخرين في كيف يجب أن تكون طرائقهم الخاصة ، إلا اللهم من باب مشاركة الآخرين بهذه الطريقة التي سار عليها ديكارت نفسه.
و لأجل هذا التأمل انعزل ديكارت الخلق و مارس تأملاته الفريدة التي بدأها في نسف جميع المُسَلَمات و القواعد و البراهين : دينية كانت أم فلسفية أو هندسية رياضية ، ليبدأ بعدها - كما يقول- بناء بيتٍ جديدٍ بعد هدم البيت الفكري القائم ، فيشك في كل شيء ، و عندما لا يبقى شيئاً يشكُ فيه ، يصل لنفسه التي شكَّت و فكرت فيستدل أن لديه نفساً و ذاتاً موجودة هي التي قامت بعملية الشك و التفكير فيعتبر وجود الذات هو أول فكرة يسلَّم بها في فلسفته و منها ينطلق لبقية المسائل.
و من خلال وجود فكرة الكمال داخل ذهنه يستدل على وجود إله خالق قادر عليم كامل أودع في أذهاننا فكرة الكمال و لو لا وجود هذا الاله لما كانت هذه الفكرة موجودة. و يعرج على انتقاد الثقة المطلقة بالحواس ضارباً عدة أمثلة من حقيقة أحجام الأجرام السماوية و بين ما نراها عليه من حجم تصوره لنا حواسنا، فاتحاً المجال للثقة أكثر بالميتافيزيقيا التي ينتقد من لا يؤمنون بها : كيف لهم أن يفرقوا بين حقيقة الأفكار التي تأتيهم وقت اليقظة و تلك التي تأتيهم إبان النوم أيهما أشد وثوقاً من الأخرى.
ينتقل بعد ذلك لوصف بيولوجي دقيق لجسم الانسان و بالتحديد القلب و كيفية تشريحه و كيفية عمله و الشرايين التي يحتوي عليها و الأوردة المنظمة لعمله ، مستعرضاً التعقيدات العديدة في أجهزة الانسان و كيف أن القلب بما فيه من حرارة هو مصدر الحياة الأول الذي يمد كامل الجسم بما يحتاجه.
و من القلب ينتقل للاستنتاج على تجرد النفس و استقلاليتها عن الجسد و على بقاءها بعد الموت و على العالم الاخر.
و اللطيف في فقرة من فقرات الكتاب أنه يطير بتصوره للآلة التي يمكن أن تتحدث و تصيح و تعمل وفقاً للبرمجة البشرية، مما يجعلك تنتبه إلى أنه يصف الروبوت في تحليق للخيال سابق للزمن.
بعد ذلك يدعو عوضاً عن الاكتفاء بالفلسفة النظرية لإيجاد فلسفة أخرى يسميها “فلسفة عملية” تساعد الانسان على تسخير عوامل الطبيعة بحيث يكون الانسان سيد الطبيعة و يسخر ذلك الاستغلال لزيادة راحته و صفاء مزاجه.
يخصص القسم الأخير للتحدث عن نشر كتابه و عن سبب اختياره للغة الفرنسية -العامية آنذاك - لكتابته عوضاً عن اللاتيتية الرسمية و ذلك لكي يصل إلى أكبر عدد من الجمهور و لا ينحصر في طبقة المثقفين فقط.
كتاب رائع جداً و أنصح به.
Αωαςhι
٢٥ آذار ٢٠١٦
Read
February 12, 2024Descartes was a fraud....????????????
Dubito ergo cogito, Cogito ergo sum! It roughly translates to "I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I exist."
This is the "first principle" of René Descartes's philosophy and what made him universally and eternally famous. He originally published it in French as je pense, donc je suis in the 17th century in his "Discourse on the Method", so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed, which I believe it was a much bolder and important move to the advance of free-thinking, to replace the hermetic language of the "elites" for a larger more democratic one, than the famous argument in itself.
Descartes as a good catholic was in search of an intellectual "mechanism" that could prove beyond any doubt that we, individuals, exist as an independent entity of all evil influence. His line of reasoning sought to prove that belief in one's own existence is the only truth that no "evil deceiver" can undermine.
But for Descartes, the ongoing study was about the nature of the mind and its ability to recognize and confirm our existence independently of all knowledge acquired through the physical senses, which can be manipulated and tampered with.
Although the idea expressed in "cogito, ergo sum" is widely attributed to Descartes, he was not the first one to mention it.
Plato in the "Knowledge of Knowledge" claimed that knowledge is attainable, and it must be "Infallible" and "Real". Any state of mind that cannot claim both characteristics cannot be true knowledge. Hence Descartes' Cogito, which we can admit, says is the fact that we can think without external influences (Infallible) that prove we exist independently (Real).
But not only Plato aborded the subject; Aristotle explains the idea also: ... if life itself is good and pleasant…and if one who sees is conscious that he sees, one who hears that he hears, one who walks that he walks and similarly for all the other human activities there is a faculty that is conscious of their exercise, so that whenever we perceive, we are conscious that we perceive, and whenever we think, we are conscious that we think, and to be conscious that we are perceiving or thinking is to be conscious that we exist... (Nicomachean Ethics).
Further, In the late sixth or early fifth century BC, Parmenides is quoted as saying For to be aware and to be are the same.
Spanish philosopher Gómez Pereira in his 1554 work "De Inmortalitate Animae", wrote nosco me aliquid noscere, & quidquid noscit, est, ergo ego sum (I know that I know something, anyone who knows is, therefore I am).
The 8th-century Hindu philosopher Adi Shankara wrote that no one thinks "I am not", arguing that one's existence cannot be doubted, as there must be someone there to doubt. Also from the oriental philosophical way of thinking, the central idea of "cogito, ergo sum" is also in the Mandukya Upanishad which succinctly presents several doctrines, namely that the universe is Brahman, and the Self (Atma) exists and is Brahman.
Then in the early fifth century AD, Augustine of Hippo in De Civitate Dei (The City of God) affirmed his certain knowledge of his own existence and added: So far as these truths are concerned, I do not at all fear the arguments of the Academics when they say, "What if you are mistaken?". For if I am mistaken, I exist. Probably Descartes was familiarized with this text because, in 1640, he wrote to thank a certain Andreas Colvius for drawing his attention to Augustine.
And finally, later but 50 years before Descartes, Teresa d'Ávila is the first person to mention the "deceiver entity" as a demon rather than God.
Despite what you have heard over the years, the famous evil deceiver argument is not original to Descartes. The author of "The Meditations" is merely giving a new spin to a common rhetorical device. Equally surprising is the fact that Descartes’ epistemological rendering of the demon trope is probably inspired by a Spanish nun, Teresa d'Ávila. (Christia Mercer - Historian and a Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, )
The fact that Teresa d'Ávila wasn't searching for knowledge or truth, but looking for God inside, changes nothing to the argument. That’s when only you and your mind are left, when you can’t turn to anything else when you’ve stripped enough away that you can start looking inward and find true self-knowledge and therefore God.
On the other hand, the version of Descartes says: He stripped away everything else so the only thing left for him to contemplate is that he’s thinking. That’s when the "Cogito" happens, says Mercer; and she adds: Given that Descartes is considered to be such an original thinker, the similarities are striking. All the steps through to the "Cogito" are the same, even if the content of some of their claims is different. But the structure and the steps in the methodology are virtually identical.
What is interesting, I think, about Teresa d'Ávila and her search for God in the "True Knowledge" is her path to achieve it: she even, at some point, began to inflict mortifications of the flesh (yes, we can say it: torture) upon herself.
Some, at the time, suggested that her newfound knowledge could be of diabolical and not of divine origin, but her confessor, the Jesuit Francis Borgia, reassured the divine inspiration of her thoughts. How convenient...
On St. Peter's Day in 1559, Teresa was convinced that Jesus Christ had visited her in bodily form, though invisible, and all three Persons communicate that He and the Father and the Holy Spirit will come to dwell with the soul that loves Him and keeps his commandments. Teresa is directing us to Jesus’ words in John 14.23: Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
Soon after this, in another vision, the famous transverberation (some sort of religious ecstasy producing an altered state of consciousness which expands the interior mental and spiritual awareness, accompanied by visions and emotional euphoria) a seraph drove the point in fire, of a golden lance through her heart, causing her a spiritual and physical pain. In her words:
I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the point, there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it ...
Lorenzo Bernini, in 1652 created a magnificent marble sculpture, "The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa" today in the Cornaro Chapel of the church of Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome. The statue is famous not only because of its artistic quality but also for the sensual charge and sexual innuendos explicitly chiselled by the artist. (When I found this I was glad that I wasn't the only one with little "dirty thoughts". Perhaps her confessor at the time could have provided a better explanation for such ecstasy but wisely he remained silent on the subject)
So my initial statement that Descartes was a fraud is certainly exaggerated and even blasphemous, but this is how I found out that Descartes, one of the most influential thinkers and one of the founders of "modern" philosophy wasn't an original. At least with his "Cogito".
Dubito ergo cogito, Cogito ergo sum! It roughly translates to "I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I exist."
This is the "first principle" of René Descartes's philosophy and what made him universally and eternally famous. He originally published it in French as je pense, donc je suis in the 17th century in his "Discourse on the Method", so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed, which I believe it was a much bolder and important move to the advance of free-thinking, to replace the hermetic language of the "elites" for a larger more democratic one, than the famous argument in itself.
Descartes as a good catholic was in search of an intellectual "mechanism" that could prove beyond any doubt that we, individuals, exist as an independent entity of all evil influence. His line of reasoning sought to prove that belief in one's own existence is the only truth that no "evil deceiver" can undermine.
But for Descartes, the ongoing study was about the nature of the mind and its ability to recognize and confirm our existence independently of all knowledge acquired through the physical senses, which can be manipulated and tampered with.
Although the idea expressed in "cogito, ergo sum" is widely attributed to Descartes, he was not the first one to mention it.
Plato in the "Knowledge of Knowledge" claimed that knowledge is attainable, and it must be "Infallible" and "Real". Any state of mind that cannot claim both characteristics cannot be true knowledge. Hence Descartes' Cogito, which we can admit, says is the fact that we can think without external influences (Infallible) that prove we exist independently (Real).
But not only Plato aborded the subject; Aristotle explains the idea also: ... if life itself is good and pleasant…and if one who sees is conscious that he sees, one who hears that he hears, one who walks that he walks and similarly for all the other human activities there is a faculty that is conscious of their exercise, so that whenever we perceive, we are conscious that we perceive, and whenever we think, we are conscious that we think, and to be conscious that we are perceiving or thinking is to be conscious that we exist... (Nicomachean Ethics).
Further, In the late sixth or early fifth century BC, Parmenides is quoted as saying For to be aware and to be are the same.
Spanish philosopher Gómez Pereira in his 1554 work "De Inmortalitate Animae", wrote nosco me aliquid noscere, & quidquid noscit, est, ergo ego sum (I know that I know something, anyone who knows is, therefore I am).
The 8th-century Hindu philosopher Adi Shankara wrote that no one thinks "I am not", arguing that one's existence cannot be doubted, as there must be someone there to doubt. Also from the oriental philosophical way of thinking, the central idea of "cogito, ergo sum" is also in the Mandukya Upanishad which succinctly presents several doctrines, namely that the universe is Brahman, and the Self (Atma) exists and is Brahman.
Then in the early fifth century AD, Augustine of Hippo in De Civitate Dei (The City of God) affirmed his certain knowledge of his own existence and added: So far as these truths are concerned, I do not at all fear the arguments of the Academics when they say, "What if you are mistaken?". For if I am mistaken, I exist. Probably Descartes was familiarized with this text because, in 1640, he wrote to thank a certain Andreas Colvius for drawing his attention to Augustine.
And finally, later but 50 years before Descartes, Teresa d'Ávila is the first person to mention the "deceiver entity" as a demon rather than God.
Despite what you have heard over the years, the famous evil deceiver argument is not original to Descartes. The author of "The Meditations" is merely giving a new spin to a common rhetorical device. Equally surprising is the fact that Descartes’ epistemological rendering of the demon trope is probably inspired by a Spanish nun, Teresa d'Ávila. (Christia Mercer - Historian and a Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, )
The fact that Teresa d'Ávila wasn't searching for knowledge or truth, but looking for God inside, changes nothing to the argument. That’s when only you and your mind are left, when you can’t turn to anything else when you’ve stripped enough away that you can start looking inward and find true self-knowledge and therefore God.
On the other hand, the version of Descartes says: He stripped away everything else so the only thing left for him to contemplate is that he’s thinking. That’s when the "Cogito" happens, says Mercer; and she adds: Given that Descartes is considered to be such an original thinker, the similarities are striking. All the steps through to the "Cogito" are the same, even if the content of some of their claims is different. But the structure and the steps in the methodology are virtually identical.
What is interesting, I think, about Teresa d'Ávila and her search for God in the "True Knowledge" is her path to achieve it: she even, at some point, began to inflict mortifications of the flesh (yes, we can say it: torture) upon herself.
Some, at the time, suggested that her newfound knowledge could be of diabolical and not of divine origin, but her confessor, the Jesuit Francis Borgia, reassured the divine inspiration of her thoughts. How convenient...
On St. Peter's Day in 1559, Teresa was convinced that Jesus Christ had visited her in bodily form, though invisible, and all three Persons communicate that He and the Father and the Holy Spirit will come to dwell with the soul that loves Him and keeps his commandments. Teresa is directing us to Jesus’ words in John 14.23: Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
Soon after this, in another vision, the famous transverberation (some sort of religious ecstasy producing an altered state of consciousness which expands the interior mental and spiritual awareness, accompanied by visions and emotional euphoria) a seraph drove the point in fire, of a golden lance through her heart, causing her a spiritual and physical pain. In her words:
I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the point, there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it ...
Lorenzo Bernini, in 1652 created a magnificent marble sculpture, "The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa" today in the Cornaro Chapel of the church of Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome. The statue is famous not only because of its artistic quality but also for the sensual charge and sexual innuendos explicitly chiselled by the artist. (When I found this I was glad that I wasn't the only one with little "dirty thoughts". Perhaps her confessor at the time could have provided a better explanation for such ecstasy but wisely he remained silent on the subject)
So my initial statement that Descartes was a fraud is certainly exaggerated and even blasphemous, but this is how I found out that Descartes, one of the most influential thinkers and one of the founders of "modern" philosophy wasn't an original. At least with his "Cogito".
September 24, 2019
“Reading good books is like engaging in conversation with the most cultivated minds of past centuries who had composed them, or rather, taking part in a well-conducted dialogue in which such minds reveal to us only the best of their thoughts.”
“That is because God isn’t a deceiver, which implies that he has given me the ability to correct any falsity there may be in my opinions. Indeed, everything that I am ‘taught by nature’ certainly contains some truth. For the term ‘nature’, understood in the most general way, refers to God himself or to the ordered system of created things established by him. And my own nature is simply the totality of things bestowed on me by God.”
July 26, 2020
“Just walk away Rene.”
Well, another genius buried a long time ago with his philosophy.
Some of his thoughts resonated with me.
Much of it did not.
The hubris of many ‘thinkers’ can be disagreeable to someone who has himself developed an unshared personal map/strategy for life after existing here for many years.
Onward.
Well, another genius buried a long time ago with his philosophy.
Some of his thoughts resonated with me.
Much of it did not.
The hubris of many ‘thinkers’ can be disagreeable to someone who has himself developed an unshared personal map/strategy for life after existing here for many years.
Onward.
February 13, 2017
حالا ما که هیچی نیستیم در عرصه فلسفه ولی به نظرم کتابش چیز خاصی نداشت و اساسا مسیر واحدی هم نداشت؛ از تشریح عملکرد قلب تا اثبات خدا از طریق عقل
کتاب کوچکی است اما واقعا خواندنش سخت است؛ چون هیچ انسجامی و اساسا محتوای ویژه ای ندارد
کتاب کوچکی است اما واقعا خواندنش سخت است؛ چون هیچ انسجامی و اساسا محتوای ویژه ای ندارد
September 8, 2017
Mais uma leitura obrigatória, desta vez no 11º ano.
Talvez um dia cá volte...
Talvez um dia cá volte...
December 3, 2024
MON BÉBÉ JE T’AIME T’ES LE PLUS FORT, HEUREUSEMENT QUE TU ES VENU AU MONDE. La vie sans toi est fade et obscure, tu illumines chaque jour et me donne une raison (lol) de continuer, longue vie à Descartes 🛐🛐❤️❤️
February 8, 2019
so we might all be in the matrix and like no wonder he had nervous breakdowns
October 11, 2019
Da molto tempo avevo il desiderio di avvicinarmi a Cartesio, sia perchè un po mi affascinava l'idea del personaggio (un soldato che resta bloccato dall'inverno in un paesino e chiuso in una stanza riscaldata fonda la geometria analitica!), sia perchè Renee Descartes è universalmente riconosciuto come il capostipite di un pensiero nuovo, che sarà capace di cambiare il mondo.
La realtà è che ho incontrato un vecchietto con la mente affilata come una spada (idee chiare e distinte, direbbe lui); ma per l'appunto un vecchietto. Sullo stesso filone, pensatori/scienziati (ma nel Seicento è la stessa cosa) come Pascal, Spinoza o Locke riescono ad essere molto più attuali: occorre però (ed appunto) ammettere che tutti e tre da Cartesio avevano preso le mosse. Il grande matematico francese va quindi celebrato per aver avviato un nuovo modo di guardare al mondo, che saranno però altri a portare al successo.
Stiamo quindi parlando di un "metodo", che condurrà il suo creatore ad alcuni risultati spettacolari (la creazione della Geometria Analitica libererà generazioni di studenti dal fardello pesante della geometria arcaica) insieme ad altri più controversi (Cartesio pretende di aver dimostrato l'esistenza di Dio e dell'anima, ma alla fine dei conti non si discosta molto dall' argomento ontologico di Sant'Anselmo e san Tommaso D'Aquino).
Cosa è dunque questo metodo? Difficile spiegarlo in dettaglio per un non addetto ai lavori: diciamo che il grande passo avanti rispetto al passato è il liberare l'indagine dalle catene di chi è venuto prima. Se una affermazione non è chiara non la si accetta, non importa chi la abbia formulata (con buona pace di Aristotele e della scolastica). Un ruolo principalissimo viene riconosciuto all'intuizione: ciò che nell'immediato appare come vero al nostro spirito deve essere considerato vero anche scientificamente.
Una affermazione del genere è da sempre la croce e la delizia di tutta la scienza. E' alla base della categoria del postulato, che esiste da molto prima di Cartesio, ed è il solo modo che abbiamo per costruire una teoria. Peccato, che il Novecento e la nascita della Meccanica dei Quanta abbia dimostrato che quell'affermazione sia falsa! Quanto doveva essere rassicurante l'universo nella mente di Cartesio. Egli aveva liberato il pensiero dal vecchiume aristotelico, ma aveva comunque creato un mondo governato da regole chiare e distinte, dove l'esistenza di Dio e dell'immortalità erano proposizioni scientificamente dimostrate ed innegabili! (Il che ci fa ben comprendere la sanguinaria ferocia con cui gli atei dei secoli successivi avrebbero attaccato il Discorso sul Metodo, Kant e Nietzsche per dirne solo due).
La chiarezza, la profondità e la compiutezza dei ragionamenti del grande genio francese lasciano il lettore senza parole. Ma il lettore del ventunesimo secolo parimenti non può non accorgersi che purtroppo questo è un libro che invecchia. Il mondo della meccanica quantistica, della bomba atomica, di Hitler e di Stalin, del principio di Indeterminazione e della società liquida non può condividere le sicurezze dell'uomo del Seicento. Noi dobbiamo convivere con la banalità del male nella bestia umana, con il terrore e l'incertezza perpetua della società liquida, con un uomo che rimasto solo dopo aver preteso la morte di Dio, si dilania nel cercare di riempire l'universo.
E pertanto non stupisce che la seconda parte del libro (quella delle applicazioni) appaia ai nostri occhi vecchia nella maniera di pensare e goffa nella falsità dei risultati pratici che raggiunge.
Davanti al sublime matematico che ha voluto fornire a tutti gli uomini (inclusi i meno dotati! Lo dice esplicitamente, il che quattro secoli fa era inaudito) gli strumenti per capire il mondo e CI E' RIUSCITO, ogni uomo di cultura deve togliersi il cappello. Ma per riflettere sul mondo di oggi, occorre riporre il Discorso sul Metodo di Cartesio nello scaffale dei libri importanti, dei libri che hanno fatto un'epoca, e prendere in mano Hannah Arendt, Zygmunt Bauman, e molti altri.
La realtà è che ho incontrato un vecchietto con la mente affilata come una spada (idee chiare e distinte, direbbe lui); ma per l'appunto un vecchietto. Sullo stesso filone, pensatori/scienziati (ma nel Seicento è la stessa cosa) come Pascal, Spinoza o Locke riescono ad essere molto più attuali: occorre però (ed appunto) ammettere che tutti e tre da Cartesio avevano preso le mosse. Il grande matematico francese va quindi celebrato per aver avviato un nuovo modo di guardare al mondo, che saranno però altri a portare al successo.
Stiamo quindi parlando di un "metodo", che condurrà il suo creatore ad alcuni risultati spettacolari (la creazione della Geometria Analitica libererà generazioni di studenti dal fardello pesante della geometria arcaica) insieme ad altri più controversi (Cartesio pretende di aver dimostrato l'esistenza di Dio e dell'anima, ma alla fine dei conti non si discosta molto dall' argomento ontologico di Sant'Anselmo e san Tommaso D'Aquino).
Cosa è dunque questo metodo? Difficile spiegarlo in dettaglio per un non addetto ai lavori: diciamo che il grande passo avanti rispetto al passato è il liberare l'indagine dalle catene di chi è venuto prima. Se una affermazione non è chiara non la si accetta, non importa chi la abbia formulata (con buona pace di Aristotele e della scolastica). Un ruolo principalissimo viene riconosciuto all'intuizione: ciò che nell'immediato appare come vero al nostro spirito deve essere considerato vero anche scientificamente.
Una affermazione del genere è da sempre la croce e la delizia di tutta la scienza. E' alla base della categoria del postulato, che esiste da molto prima di Cartesio, ed è il solo modo che abbiamo per costruire una teoria. Peccato, che il Novecento e la nascita della Meccanica dei Quanta abbia dimostrato che quell'affermazione sia falsa! Quanto doveva essere rassicurante l'universo nella mente di Cartesio. Egli aveva liberato il pensiero dal vecchiume aristotelico, ma aveva comunque creato un mondo governato da regole chiare e distinte, dove l'esistenza di Dio e dell'immortalità erano proposizioni scientificamente dimostrate ed innegabili! (Il che ci fa ben comprendere la sanguinaria ferocia con cui gli atei dei secoli successivi avrebbero attaccato il Discorso sul Metodo, Kant e Nietzsche per dirne solo due).
La chiarezza, la profondità e la compiutezza dei ragionamenti del grande genio francese lasciano il lettore senza parole. Ma il lettore del ventunesimo secolo parimenti non può non accorgersi che purtroppo questo è un libro che invecchia. Il mondo della meccanica quantistica, della bomba atomica, di Hitler e di Stalin, del principio di Indeterminazione e della società liquida non può condividere le sicurezze dell'uomo del Seicento. Noi dobbiamo convivere con la banalità del male nella bestia umana, con il terrore e l'incertezza perpetua della società liquida, con un uomo che rimasto solo dopo aver preteso la morte di Dio, si dilania nel cercare di riempire l'universo.
E pertanto non stupisce che la seconda parte del libro (quella delle applicazioni) appaia ai nostri occhi vecchia nella maniera di pensare e goffa nella falsità dei risultati pratici che raggiunge.
Davanti al sublime matematico che ha voluto fornire a tutti gli uomini (inclusi i meno dotati! Lo dice esplicitamente, il che quattro secoli fa era inaudito) gli strumenti per capire il mondo e CI E' RIUSCITO, ogni uomo di cultura deve togliersi il cappello. Ma per riflettere sul mondo di oggi, occorre riporre il Discorso sul Metodo di Cartesio nello scaffale dei libri importanti, dei libri che hanno fatto un'epoca, e prendere in mano Hannah Arendt, Zygmunt Bauman, e molti altri.
January 18, 2022
"Meditasyonlar"ın hazırlığı niteliğinde "Yöntem Üzerine Konuşma / Discourse on Method / Discours de la Méthode", Descartes’ın her şeyden tadımlık olarak bahsederek özellikle kartezyen felsefenin tanıtınımı yaptığı bir eser. Bir nevi Montaigne’in "Denemeler"i gibi bir otobiyografi resmi çizen kitabın özellikle kartezyen felsefe, inanç ve insanla ilgili ilk 4 bölümü çok başarılı, sağlık ve insan vücuduyla ilgili son 2 bölümü ise düşündürücü. Özellikle "Meditasyonlar"a henüz başlamayanların okursa güzel bir hazırlık olacaktır.
17.08.2021
Londra, Birleşik Krallık
Alp Turgut
17.08.2021
Londra, Birleşik Krallık
Alp Turgut
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,179 reviews