Discourse on Method cogito ego sum.
Introduction
Civilisations, empires, kingdoms,
cultures, both great and small, across times and places, have come and gone;
impeccable systems and ideologies have
arisen and have shook the world,
though obsolete today; great thoughts have been developed and propagated, yet
with little or no effects in our world today. The ancient and medieval way of
philosophising, though beautiful at their respective time, soon became
ineffectual. Why is that the case? History has it that one thing common to the
changes highlighted above is the quest for newness, for creativity, for meeting
up to the demands of the time, a burning yearning for constructing a thought
process and method that adequately relate to the prevailing challenges. The 17th
century French philosopher, in the face of the challenges facing the
intellectual and philosophical world of his time, and in a bid to propose a
process, a method that will usher in ingenuity, growth, creativity, came to the
rescue. How? He came to the rescue by developing what is today called the
Cartesian method, whuch he explicated in his work “The Discourse on Method”. It
is thos work of Descartes that this paper sets out to expose.
The problematic of this paper
vis-à-vis the Discourse on Method is
no different from that which all quests for change, modernity, aim at. The
problematic of modernity revolves around enhancement, subjectivity and
autonomy. Enhancement is about moving from the old, the obsolete to the new, to
the more result-oriented. This movement has the person, the subject as the
emphasis. The subject is however enhanced to be capable of making laws for
himself.
The plan of this paper shall be as follows: refreshing and updating our minds on the subject modernity, a
presentation of the figure of Rene Descartes, the Cartesian rationalism, the cogito ego sum. The Cartesian method
versus the Socratic method, a synthesis of the six parts of discourse on the
method, a panel to show its contemporary
relevance today in our society, and finally conclusion.
Refreshing and update
The old is good but the new is
better. The old is good because it is the precursor of the new, the ancestor of
the new, but we are aware that the new signifies progress, growth, development.
It was Heraclitus, the quintessential pre-Socratic philosopher, who maintained
that change is the only thing that is constant in life.[1] He
maintained that one cannot step into the same water twice. But what is so
special about the new? Common sense tells us that we all seek newness,
creativity, ingenuity, the prominence of the subject, the emphasis on freedom, efficiency,
effectiveness, modernity. Modernity, from the Latin “modernus” means “of today”
“of what is current”: put differently, it refers to new method, new approach.
What is more? The old is usually shrouded in myth, fear, dogmatism and fideism,
immaturity and ineptitude. The new (modernity) steps in to usher in maturity,
enhancement, subjectivity and autonomy. Enhancement pertains to moving from the
old and often futile ways of thinking and acting to newer and more
result-oriented ways. The whole enterprise of modernity is not a once in a life
time expenditure, rather it is a continuous one, one that takes place every
time the old becomes obsolete, and this seems to be every passing moment.
` Prior to the 17th century
AD, philosophy was caught up in the web of dogmatism and fideism, in the
medieval period, and in the shackles of myths and fear, in the ancient period,
But from the 17th century AD, with the arrival of Rene Descartes and
Immanuel Kant into the arena of philosophical cum intellectual adventure,
philosophy was to yearn for a newer and better way of philosophizing, of
intellectualizing. It was only enough that philosophy had been napping and
snoring in the deep sleep of feverish rationalizing, she was soon to be woken
up from her dogmatic slumber Rene
Descartes came into the scene with his very popular methodic geared, geared
towards promoting rationalism over and above empiricism. Descartes emphasized
the subject in need of enhancement. This effort of Descartes revolutionised the
whole business of philosophy. Immanuel Kant, the great German philosopher, one
who was woken up from his dogmatic slumber by the skepticism of David Hume[2], also
came into the theatre of philosophical enquiry with a great emphasis on a
synthesis of reason/intuition with the senses. He emphasized a philosophy that
is transcendental, that is reflective, that looks inward. Today, the world, and
in particular philosophy, is still basking in the euphoria of modernity. Descartes
and Kant have removed the scale of mediocrity and minimalism from the eyes of
all humanity. But this is not the end, the enhancement continues. The future
looks brighter and pregnant with better prospects of growth, of the promotion
of subject, of the increase in the capacity of the subjects to make laws for
themselves.
Rene
Descartes
The figure of our
expose is the French philosopher, Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes is
described as “the originator of modern philosophy, or at least the first
important philosopher of our times”[3].
He is the most widely studied among all the great philosophers.[4] As
a little boy growing up in Tourain, his father, Joachim Descartes referred to
him as a “Little Philosopher” due to his extraordinary curiosity. Descartes is
a mathematician, Physicist and a philosopher. Some historians of philosophy
describe him together with Immanuel Kant as the two philosophical giants of
modern period.[5]
From 1604-1612,
Descartes was educated by the Jesuits in La Fleche College, a prestigious
school patronised by Henry IV. The Jesuits are the members of a Religious
Congregation in the Catholic Church known for the promotion of education. They
are known as people of great intellectuals. La Fleche College can be compared
with modern day Loyola College Abuja, a leading school in Nigeria run by the
Jesuits. In La Fleche College, Descartes studied Aristotelian-Scholastic
philosophy. His education included mathematics, logic, history, rhetoric and
theology. During these years of his academic career, he was delighted with the
certainty and precision of mathematics, compared with philosophy whose
teachings always triggered doubts and disputes.[6]
The early correspondences written by Descartes showed that he appreciated the
value of the complete course on philosophy which he was taught by the Jesuits
in the college. He described the school as one of the best schools in Europe.[7] However, Descartes was not satisfied with the
education he received at the College. He was primarily concerned with the
problem of intellectual certainty. He began to reject the traditional form of
knowledge which he received as a schoolboy. He held that philosophy even though
it has been studied for many centuries by the most outstanding minds has not
produced anything which is not in dispute and consequently doubtful.[8] He
appreciated classical literature because it contained elements that stimulated
the mind but he rejected it since it was incapable of guiding his behaviour. He
honoured theology but concluded that its revealed truths are above the
intelligence of man and could only be attained with the aid of divine
assistance. Descartes was careful not to deny this truth for he remained a
pious Catholic till death, but he did not find in theology the method by which
its truth could be attained solely with the power of reason.[9]
At the age of
twenty-two, Descartes after studying law at the University of Poitiers began to
travel extensively in Europe with the hope to seek knowledge. His desire for
certainty of knowledge led him to turn from his books to the book of nature. He
sought no knowledge other than that which could be found only in himself or in
the great book of the world. In this period, Descartes became friend with the
Dutch scientist, Isaac Beekman who stimulated his interest in mathematics and
science. Under the influence of Beekman, he achieved successes in science and
mathematics. He invented the sine law of refraction in physics, the calculation
of the angles of the bows of the rainbow in meteorology and found solution to
Pappus’ problem in Geometry.[10]
Descartes scientific and philosophical works were written in Holland where he
lived for many years. He conceived his scientific system as a successor and
better replacement of Aristotelian-scholastic synthesis which dominated
European thought for centuries.[11]
Scholastic philosophy shaped the intellectual climate in which Descartes grew
up. In order to have a better grasp of his approach towards scholastic
philosophy, it is important to note that the method of teaching in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was influenced by scholastic thought. In
this period, there were allegiance to Thomist views on theology and broad assumption
of the correctness of Aristotle’s doctrines in the area of logic, natural
philosophy, ethics and metaphysics.[12]
Hence, Descartes
broke away from Aristotelian philosophy and gave philosophy a new start. He
began to reject as force his previously acquired knowledge. All the things he
used to accept as true knowledge he began to regard them as mere illusions.
Since he was seeking a system of truth that would be derived from his own
rational power, he ceased to rely on Aristotle and on the authority of the
Church for the certainty of truth. He gave philosophy a fresh start by using
only those truths he could attain through his rational powers as the foundation
for all other knowledge.[13]
Thus, he was the first philosopher to build a philosophy that is founded on
reason.
Descartes
published his main work, The Meditation
on First Philosophy in 1641 with
six sets of objections and his replies to them. The first sample of his work
which was prefaced by the Discourse on
the Method was published anonymously in 1637. In 1644, he published the Principles of Philosophy which was
dedicated to Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia. His last work was The Passions of the Soul and was
influenced by his discussions with Princess Elizabeth on the relation of the
mind to body and the control of passion. Descartes died of pneumonia on
February 11, 1650.[14]
His achievements in the realm of philosophy, mathematics and science cannot be
overemphasized. He is still and rightly called the father of modern philosophy
in the sense that without his philosophy, the very shape of the problems which
we wrestle today about knowledge and science, subjectivity and reality, matter
and consciousness, would have been entirely different.[15]
Cartesian Rationalism
Rationalism- from its Latin derivative rationalis, "rational" comes
from ratio, meaning ‘reason’.
Consequently, rationalism is a philosophical school of thought which emphasizes
reason as the primary source of knowledge, prior or superior to, and
independent of sense perceptions. [16] Rene
Descartes is often called the father of modern philosophy and this owing to the
effect which his rationalism scheme initiated in philosophy. He is noted to
have been chiefly concerned with the
problem of “intellectual certainty,”[17] as such, it is no doubt he is a rationalist,
since he in a way has been able to apply the principles of innate
reasoning by the rationalist’s method of
trying to attain and prove the power of the intellect to reach truth. He
emphasized reason as the basis of epistemological conquest- the knowledge of
reality- more than empiricism, where knowledge is claimed to come through sense
experience. Descartes demonstrated the limitations of the senses using the
changes that occur in wax when it is melted. Our minds are able to grasp the
true nature of substances despite changes in shape, size, colour, smell and so
on. Thus, he explains that beyond acquired ideas from external things through
the senses, humans are imbued with innate ideas which give us knowledge about
certain realities. Descartes loved mathematical precision, certitude and
indubitability. This reflected in his philosophising, so much so, that his
philosophical enterprise could be described as driven by a quest to produce a
system of “speculative completeness” which has a semblance of mathematical
exactness.[18] Thus, Descartes' method which tries to
harness the powers of the mind with a special set of rules followed
mathematical method. He insisted upon a systematic and orderly thinking through
this new method.[19]
The
First Rule was never to accept anything as true unless I recognized it to be
certainly evidently such: that is, carefully to avoid all precipitation and
prejudgment; and to include nothing in my conclusions unless it presented
itself so clearly and distinctly to my mind that there was no reason for
occasion to doubt it. The Second Rule was to divide each of the difficulties
which I encountered into as many parts as possible, and as might be required
for an easier solution. The Third Rule was to think in an orderly fashion when
concerned with the search for truth beginning with the things which were
simplest and easiest to understand, and gradually and by degrees reaching
toward more complex knowledge, even treating as though ordered materials which
were not necessarily so. The Fourth Rule was both in the process of searching
and in reviewing when in difficulty always to make enumerations so complete,
and reviews so general, that I would be certain that nothing was omitted.[20]
Humans,
Descartes argued, are raised to the realm of knowledge through the natural powers
of the mind, namely; intuition and deduction which must be orderly regulated.
Intuition, for Descartes, means an intellectual activity or vision of clarity
that leaves no doubt in the mind. Speaking of deduction, he rejects the
Aristotelian syllogism in which conclusion follows not necessarily from facts
but its premises. Descartes rather describes deduction as all necessary
influence from facts that are known with certainty
Interestingly, Descartes proceeded to put everything
he ever knew or believed to doubt, both physical and metaphysical including
mathematics that was so certain for him. His intention was to re-construct
philosophy on a firm foundation through a method of systemic or methodic doubt.
Descartes' methodic doubt is a form of scepticism sometimes called provisional
or methodological scepticism, and consists in doubting everything until the
point is reached where nothing can be doubted. He believed that through
scepticism one can rise to find knowledge that is absolute, clear, necessary
and self-evident, which in turn serves as the basis for all other knowledge and
the knowledge of reality.[21] Building
his scepticism against all sensible things and by attributing a form of
probable deception to an “evil genius,” he adopted intuition and deduction as
the only rational and reliable procedure to attain knowledge.
Cogito,
Ergo Sum
The cogito ergo sum, “I think, therefore I
exist” is at the heart of Rene Descartes philosophy in the Cartesian method. As
mentioned above, Descartes sought out to doubt everything he had ever known.
But why did he had to doubt? He felt and rightly observed that there could be
deception of the senses, deception by a demon and of course deception that
comes about from a state of dream. In this setting, true and certain knowledge
was impossible, thus, he was led to a form of scepticism. But it dawned on him
that while he was doubting everything, he was also thinking. He further
observed that doubting is a function of thought, of the thinking faculty. But
he wondered how one can think if one does not first exist. He therefore came to
the conclusion that, doubt concerning his own existence was impossible because
he needed to exist before he could even think and he needed to have the ability
to think before he could doubt, consequently, that he thinks shows that he
exists. Thus the only absolute certainty he was sure of, and on which he built
his philosophy, was the cogito ergo sum,
“I think, therefore, I am.” Every time Descartes asserts, ‘I am thinking,’ he
must assert the “I” thus asserting the existence of the self who in doing the
thinking.[22] Furthermore,
the cogito became instrumental to
prove his existence, that of other material things, and that of God. Descartes
considered the cogito to be a “purely intellectual” truth, that is, one which
is entirely conceptual, and a priori.[23]
The method of Descartes
compared to that of Socrates
Descartes considered mathematics even though
he had earlier doubted it, as a tool for effectively achieving the certainty for
which human thinkers yearn. He thus proposed that we turn to mathematical
reasoning as a model for achieving progress in human knowledge.[24]
Furthermore, he proposed that in order to be absolutely sure that we accept
only what is agenuinely certain, we must first deliberately renounce all of the
firmly held but questionable beliefs we have previously acquired by experience
and education.
The method of Descartes,
which is mathematical in nature, can be summarised as follows:[25]
2. Divide
every question into manageable parts.
3. Begin
with the simplest issues and ascend to the more complex.
4. Review
frequently enough to retain the whole argument at once.
Socrates
Socrates,
one of the ancient philosophers, was born around 469 B.C. near Athens. His
father, Sophroniscus was a sculptor and his mother Phenarate a midwife.He began
a new period of history of ancient philosophy. This period is considered the
qualitative leap from a cosmological to an ethical humanistic conception.[26]
Socrates
versus Descartes
The Socratic Method uses questions to examine the
values, principles, and beliefs of students.[27]
Through questioning, the participants strive first to identify and then to
defend their moral intuitions about the world which undergird their ways of
life. Socratic inquiry deals not with producing a recitation of facts, or a
questioning of the logic of various and sundry abstractions which are held up
for comparison like in the Descartes method, but demands rather that the
participants account for themselves, their thoughts, actions, and beliefs. The Socratic
method functions as a dialectic approach to knowledge.
The Socratic Method focuses on moral education, on
how one ought to live.[28]
Socratic inquiry necessarily proceeds in an ad hominem
style. That is, rather than making arguments or asking questions designed to
convince any or all people, all comments in a Socratic inquiry are directed at
specific participants in the discussion. Descartes inquiry is auto-inquiry. It
is ego seeking fact. It is a rational search of new foundation of knowledge
that is indubitable. Descartes posited:
This is why, as soon as age permitted me to emerge
from the control of my tutors, I entirely quitted the study of letters. And
resolving to seek no other science than that which could be found in myself…”[29]
“I thus concluded that it is much more custom and example that persuade us than
any certain knowledge, and yet in spite of this the voice of the majority does
not afford a proof in truths a little difficult to discover, because such
truths are much more likely to have been discovered by one man than by a
nation.[30]
Furthermore, the subject of inquiry
of Socrates is not what is thought or said about the world in general, but what
each participant thinks or says about the world. The goal is not to consider depersonalized
propositions and abstractions, but to probe the underlying values and beliefs
of each inquirer. Since the substance of Socratic inquiry is the belief and
value system of the participants, when those beliefs or values are challenged,
or refuted, it is nothing less than the coherence of the lives of the people
that is at stake. As Socrates says often in Plato’s dialogues, he is primarily
concerned with how one ought to live. In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates says,
“Do not take what I say as if I were merely playing, for you see the subject of
our discussion— and on what subject should even a man of slight intelligence be
more serious?—namely, what kind of life should one live . . .” Socrates is famous for saying “the unexamined
life is not worth living.” Equally true, though less appreciated, is the fact
that the unlived life is not worth examining.
A
synthesis of the six parts of Discourse
on the Method
In his Discourse on Method Rene Descartes’
attempts to explain his method of reasoning.
He uses philosophical arguments to illustrate the development of this
method through a brief autobiographical sketch.
Discourse on the method was
the first book published by Descartes in 1637.[31] The
Discourse on Method is divided into
six parts. Each part deals with a
specific idea.
In
part one; he establishes the fact that good sense is the best universal
shared endowment in the world. According
to him, it is evidence that the power of judging well and of telling the true
from false which is what we properly call “good sense” or “reason’ is naturally
equal in all; thus it is also evidence that our opinions differ not because
some of us are more reasonable than others, but solely because we take our
thoughts along different paths and do not attend to the same things. If we all possess “good sense,” it is not a
lack of ability that obstructs people but their failure to follow the correct
path of thought. The use of a method
according to him can elevate an average mind above the rest. Descartes
considers himself a typical thinker improved by the use of his method. He has
no confidence in any of philosophy’s results, even in his own ability to
improve that situation. He comes to the
conclusion that all people have a “natural light” that can be obscured by
education and that it is as important to study oneself as it is to study the
world. [32]
In
part two, Descartes holds that the works of individuals are superior to
those conceived by committees, because an individual’s work follows one plan,
with all elements working toward the same end. He opines that the sciences he
learned in his younger days were confusing and complex because this consists of
ideas of many different men from various eras.
Keeping in mind what he has learned of logic, geometrical analysis and
Algebra, he sets down the following four main rules;
First, was never to accept anything
as true if he didn’t have evident knowledge of its truth. The second rule was
to divide each of the difficulties he examined into as many parts as possible
and as might be required in order to resolve them. The third was to direct his thoughts in an orderly manner, by
starting with the simplest and most easily known objects in order to move up
gradually to knowledge of the most complex, and by stipulating some order even
among objects that have no natural order of precedence. And the last was to
make all his enumerations so complete, and many reviews so comprehensive, that
he could be sure that he had not overlooked anything. Thus being afraid that
his own misconceptions might be getting in the way of his pure reason, he
decided to systematically do away with all his wrong opinions and use his new
method exclusively.[33]
In
part three, Descartes while rethinking, puts up a provisional moral code
consisting of four maxims, for according to him if you want to rebuild the
house you live in, it is not enough just to pull it down, to arrange for
materials and architects, and to have carefully drawn up the plans; you must
also provide yourself with somewhere else to live comfortably while the work is
going on. So in order not to be
indecisive in his actions, he sets forth the following moral codes;
The first was to obey the laws and
customs of his country, holding constantly to the religion in which by God’s
grace he had been instructed from his childhood, and governing himself in all
other matters. The second maxim was to be as firm and decisive in his actions
as he could, and to follow even the most doubtful opinions, once he had adopted
them, as constantly as if they had been quite certain. His third maxim was to
try always to master himself rather than fortune and change his desires rather
than changing how things stand in the world. Finally, to conclude this moral
code, he decided to review the various occupations of human life, so as to try
to choose the best. Without wanting to say anything about other people’s
occupations, Descartes thought it would be best for him to continue with the
very one he was then engaged in, and devote his whole life to cultivating his
reason and advancing as far as he could in the knowledge of the truth,
following his self-imposed method. For
Descartes, reasoning and searching for the truth is, if not the highest
calling, at least extremely useful.
Descartes distinguishes his method
of doubting from that of skeptics, who doubt purely for the sake of doubting
and pretends to be always indecisive; on the contrary, his whole aim was to
reach certainty – to push away the loose earth and sand so as to get to rock or
clay. He concluded that he had pretty
fair success in this, and pointed out three features of his procedure that
contributed to its success: First, when trying to expose the falsity or
uncertainty of any proposition, he brought arguments that were open and certain
against it, not feeble conjectures. Second, he never encountered any
proposition so doubtful that he could not get from it some fairly certain
conclusion, even if it was only the conclusion that contained nothing certain.
Third, in destroying all those opinions of his which he judged to be
ill-founded he made various observations and acquired many experiences that he
had since used in establishing more certain opinions. In search of certainty,
Descartes travelled widely and finally retired to examine his thoughts in
solitude.
In
part four, Descartes however, offered proofs of the existence of the soul
and of God. In contemplating the nature
of dreams and the unreliability of the senses, he becomes aware of his own
process of thinking – “I think therefore I exist” (Cogito ergo sum). Thereby,
admitting the limit of reason. For his
own doubt led him to believe that he is imperfect, yet his ability to conceive
of perfection indicates that something perfect must exist outside of him –
namely God. He therefore reasons that
all good things in the world must come from God, as must all clear and distinct
thoughts.[34]
In the fifth
part of this discourse, Descartes
traces the long tradition, going back to Plato, which held that plants are
special in having ‘vegetative souls’, lower animals in also having ‘sensitive
souls’, and humans in having ‘rational souls’ as well as the other two.[35]
He therefore describes a thought-experiment concerning a possible living human
body which he takes not to be equipped with a rational soul or any substitute
for one; he tacitly rules out the other kinds of soul as well, but allows that
something in this human body namely, fire in the heart which he posited might play the role that earlier
thinkers assigned to the vegetative and sensitive souls.
In the sixth
part of this discourse, Descartes
tries to outline the things he believes are needed if we are to go further than
he has in the investigation of nature, and his reasons for writing this
discourse.
Panel
Every child right from birth begins to learn, begins
to learn how to talk, to walk, how to carry out some tasks, how to survive, he
begins to learn how to fit in into the family and the society he or she finds
himself or herself. To aid this process of learning the child is exposed to
various forms of learning experiences, first at home, and then in school. At
school, the child goes through a gradual and systematic process of growth and
education. It is hoped that the child with time becomes fully educated and
grounded on the basic principles of life, and that he or she becomes able to
contribute to the growth and development of the nation. In fact, it has been
rightly argued that education is the foundation on which any meaningful
national development is built. Researches have shown and common sense tells us
that the growth of all nations in the world is to a large extent directly
proportional to the quality of education the citizens receive. It has been
shown that developed countries have a
well-structured educational system, one that is capable of effectively
contributing to the growth of the nation. Also, researches have shown that
those countries that are referred to as less developed have a poor educational
foundation. It is thus evident that no meaningful development can take place in
the absence of an educational system that is of high quality.
But what is
education? Education has been defined as that which enables the individual to
develop his capacities through the acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes
and values; a process of developing the physical, social, mental and moral
abilities of an individual; the process of teaching, preserving and upgrading
culture in order to improve the welfare of man;
the deliberate, indirect and incidental experience one encounters as one
passes through different phases or stages of life.[36] Furthermore, the word “education” is derived
from a Latin verb “educere” which means “to draw out” “to bring forth” “to lead.” Thus it can be
shown that the goal of education is to lead one to fully discover and harness
one’s capabilities. But how do we do this? The usual way is that the
pupil/student swallows all the teacher passes across, with little or no
reflection on the part of the pupil/student.
Education is supposed to lead one inwards, to reflect, to question, to
identify, to differentiate. What we have today is a form of education that is
so much in a hurry, the teacher is in a hurry, the student is in a hurry. The
student is not given the opportunity to critically examine the concepts and
principles that abound in his or her area of study. There exists a form of
dogmatism and authoritarianism to the extent that the student in some cases
does not dare question the validity and relevance of some concepts. Can any
meaningful development come from such a system of education? The great
philosopher Socrates rightly captured this point many years ago when he said
that “an unexamined life is not worth living” An education that is devoid of
reflection is not worth the name and cannot meaningfully contribute to the
growth and development of any nation. Rene Descartes however offers us a system
of education, one that emphasizes a reflective mind.
Rene Descartes spent his mornings at the Jesuit school
at La Fleche, France, in deep reflection. He was as a child diagnosed of
mitochondria, and as a result was given a special dispensation from his morning
duties in his school.[37]
He converted those free times to moments of intense reflections, pondering on
the nature of life and its ultimate value.[38]
These reflections afforded him the opportunity to question the validity of his
studies at La Fleche. Descartes considers the learner as his/her own teacher,
noting that education is but a personal quest.[39]
Thus, education should be student-centred, giving the student the opportunity
to truly understand basic concepts and principles after of a rigorous and
extensive process of questioning and doubting. Descartes maintained that for
any meaningful learning to take place, it is important that the student doubts supposed
truths; this will in the long run expand the horizons of the student and make
him or her a better learner and a beret person, not one who just accepts
without questioning the dictates of the teacher. This, for Descartes, will
create a sense of creativity, originality and independence in the student. The
student becomes a matured thinker capable of developing and maintaining
intelligent arguments. This is the goal of education for Descartes as it will
enable the proper acquisition of knowledge, one that will turn out to be a
strong conviction that can never be shaken by any other. Descartes believed
that truth can be learned by a method of
enquiry which entails doubting a supposed notion and reducing it into smaller
and more basic units. This process is at the centre of any problem solving, and
can be advantageous to any country which desires to grow and develop. From the
above, it is evident that the old way of teaching and learning must give way to
the new if our education system must make great impacts in our days.
It is our
position that the growth rate of Nigeria is low, that Nigeria is not fully
harnessing her human and natural resource, that Nigeria is still far from what
and where she wants to be. We posit further that the cause of this slow and low
growth rate is largely due to the failure of her education system. We also
posit that the education system has failed because of the abandonment of
reflection, of deep, intense, matured and independent thinking in the whole
ptocess of teaching and learning. It would seem that most Nigerians go to
school out of compulsion. Little wonder it plays out in the way amd manner they
approach learning. Every year our institutions of higher learning graduate
students in their thousand, yet the nation keeps sinking in the mud of a
snail-like growth .Every year, the National Youth Service Corps passes out
young and vibrant men and women, yet our great nation swims in the shackles of
abject poverty, despair, hunger, unemployment, corruption, just to mention but
a few. The solution is simple, it is Cartesian in nature: an enthronement of a
process of deep reflection as we go through the stages of formal and informal
education. It is letting the school pass through us. It is doubting not for the
sake of doubting but that one might come onto knowledge. It is a doubt that
causes one to think, a thinking that opens one to newer ideas and ways of doing
things, a thinking that spurs one to action, action that are solutions to the
problems of today and those of tomorrow.
If Nigeria must grow, if she must take charge of the development of her
resources both human and natural, it is our position that she must develop an
education system that is student-centred, one that gives room for students to
engage in reflection, that encourages enhancement, subjectivity, autonomy,
creativity, originality. Students must be trained to become matured and independent thinkers capable of
contributing greatly to the growth of their nation.
Conclusion
In this
expose, we have shown Rene Descartes’ presentation of his method, a method he
proposes for rightly conducting one’s reason and for seeking of truth. In this
work, we found elements of Cartesian dualism and a treatment of his popular cogito ergo sum. The climax of the paper
was our positon in the panel that the growth of any nation, Nigeria as a case
study, cannot improve without a sound and reputable educational system. We also
posited that no meaningful improvement can take place in the educational system
if there is no emphasis on the student, on the promotion of the activity of
reflection, of thinking on the part of the teacher, but especially on the part
of the student..
While the
presentation of Descartes’ method may seem very apt and rewarding, it is no
doubt that there abounds varied and often opposing views to his position. A
synthesis is thus necessary; this synthesis has occurred in various dimensions,
the most prominent being the synthesis proposed by Immanuel Kant, the
combination of reason and senses in the process of acquiring true and reliable
knowledge. Research however continues in the various possible forms of this
synthesis.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anthony
Kenny, The Rise of Modern Philosophy
(New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2006)
Bell E.
T. Men of Mathematics (New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.,1937)
Bicknell J, Descartes’
rhetoric: Roads, foundations, and difficulties in “The method, Philosophy
& Rhetoric”, 2003, Volume 36(1), pp. 22-38.
Dario
Composta, History of Ancient Philosophy
(India: Theological Publications, 2008(
Dubey D
L et al, An Introduction to Nigeria
Education (Hong Kong: Macmillan, 1984)
Garrett
Thomson, An Introduction to Modern Philosophy
(California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993)
James
Seth, English Philosophers and Schools of
Philosophy (New York: Ams Press Inc., 1973)
John
Cottingham, The Cambridge Companion to
Descartes (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992)
Laurence
Lafleur, Descartes’ Place in History in
Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company
Inc., 1637)
Margaret
Wilson, Descartes (Boston: Routledge
& Kegan Paul, 1978), p. xiii-xiv.
Peter
Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy
(New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1981)
Rene
Descartes, Discourse on Method (New
York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1637)
Samuel
E. Stumpf, Philosophy: History and
Problems (New York: Mc Graw-Hill Inc, 1994)
Robert
Stoothoff et. al eds. Descartes: Selected
Philosophical Writings (New York: Cambridge University Press 1998)
Spark
Notes Editors, Spark Notes on René
Descartes,. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/descartes/
Accessed November 9, 2015
William
F. Lawhead, The voyage of discovery; A historical introduction to philosophy
(Belmont: Wadeworth/Thomson Learning Inc., 2002(
http://www.sparksnotes.com/philosophy/discoursemethod/summary.htmt.
Accessed on 10 Nov. 2015
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/discoursemethod/summary.htmt. Accessed on 11th Nov. 2015
[1] Cf. William F. Lawhead, The voyage of discovery; A historical introduction to philosophy
(Belmont: Wadeworth/Thomson Learning Inc., 2002), p. 18.
[2] Cf. Samuel E.
Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problems (New York: Mc Graw-Hill Inc,
1994), p. 13.
[3] Cf. Laurence Lafleur, Descartes’ Place in History in Rene
Descartes, Discourse on Method (New
York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc., 1637), p. vii.
[4] Cf. John Cottingham, The Cambridge Companion to Descartes (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 1
[5] Cf. Anthony Kenny, The Rise of Modern Philosophy (New York:
Oxford University Press Inc., 2006), p. xiii
[6] Cf. Samuel E. Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problem, p. 236.
[7] John Cottingham, The Cambridge Companion to Descartes, p.
3.
[8] Cf. Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method (New York: The
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1637), p. 6.
[9] Cf. Samuel E. Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problems, p.
237.
[10] Cf. John Cottingham, The Cambridge Companion to Descartes, pp.
4-5.
[11] Cf. Margaret Wilson, Descartes (Boston: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1978), p. xiii-xiv.
[12] Cf. John Cottingham, The Cambridge Companion to Descartes, p.
4.
[13] Cf. Samuel E. Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problems, p.
238.
[14] Cf. Garrett Thomson, An Introduction to Modern Philosophy (California: Wadsworth
Publishing Company, 1993), pp. 10-11.
[15] Cf. John Cottingham, The Cambridge Companion to Descartes, pp.
2-3.
[16] Cf. Peter Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy (New York: Harper and Row Publishers,
Inc., 1981), p. 236.
[17] Cf. Enoch Samuel Stumpf, Philosophy: History
and Problems p. 236.
[18] Cf.James Seth, English Philosophers and Schools of Philosophy (New York: Ams Press
Inc., 1973), p. 4.
[19] Cf.Enoch Samuel Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problems, p. 238.
[20] Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.,
1637), p.
[21] Peter Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy p. 259.
[22] Cf. William F. Lawhead,
The voyage of discovery- A historical introduction to philosophy
(Belmont: Wadeworth/Thomson Learning Inc., 2002), p. 231-232.
[23] Cf. Spark Notes
Editors, “Spark Note on René Descartes
(1596–1650).” http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/descartes/ Accessed
November 9, 2015
[24] Cf. Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method, p.13
[25] Cf. Rene Descartes, Discourse on method, p. 18
[26] Cf. Dario Composta, History of Ancient Philosophy,(India:
Theological Publications, 2008), p.114
[27] CF. Dario Composta, History of Ancient Philosophy, p.117
[28] CF. Dario Composta, History of Ancient Philosophy, p.117
[29] Cf. Rene Descartes,
Discourse on Method, p. 30
[30] Cf. Rene Descartes,
Discourse on Method, p. 35
[31] Cf. Robert Stoothoff et. al eds.
Descartes:
Selected Philosophical Writings (New York: Cambridge University Press 1998), p. ii.
[32] Cf. http://www.sparksnotes.com/philosophy/discoursemethod/summary.htmt. Accessed on 10 Nov. 2015
[34] Cf. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/discoursemethod/summary.htmt. Accessed on 11th Nov. 2015
[36] Cf. Dubey D L et al, An Introduction to
Nigeria Education (Hong Kong: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 1-2.
[37] Cf. Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method, p. xi
[38] Cf. Bell, E. T. Men of Mathematics.( New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1937), p.45
[39] Cf. Bicknell, J. (). Descartes’ rhetoric: Roads, foundations, and
difficulties in “The method, Philosophy & Rhetoric”, 2003, Vol 36(1),
pp. 22-38.
Comments
Post a Comment