Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences
INTRODUCTION
As
Aristotle highlighted in the Nicomachean that every choice, action and rational
inquiry is aimed at some good, and the good is that which all desires.[1]
This demonstrates the succession of academic currents and traditions to more
illustrious ones. The preference of a new methodology to an archaic one, and
this presents the perfect idea of modernity. It was this quest for newness that
made the 17th century French philosopher, Rene Descartes unsatisfied
with all he had learnt from the Jesuit college, La Flache[2] in
France. Having realized the uncertainties in the knowledge he has acquired, he
discarded them and searched for that knowledge which is certain without any
probability of doubt.
The
meticulous search for such knowledge requires a sophisticated methodology. This
led Descartes to write the treatise titled 'Discourse on the Method of Rightly
Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences,' which is
eventually the theme of this work. It is worthy to note that the methodology
which Descartes adopted was so influential that it marked the end of the
Aristotelian-scholastic tradition and gave birth to the modern era in
philosophy. In regards to that, Descartes is acknowledged to be the father of
modern philosophy.
Nevertheless,
the aim of this work is directed to the exposition of the Cartesian method. It
would be achieved through a glance on modern rationalism and empiricism. Also,
a succinct presentation of Descartes' view on rationalism and universality of
reason; which would be followed up by the structure of the Cartesian method,
its philosophical implications and its existential imports, then comes the
conclusion.
MODERN RATIONALISM
Modern
rationalism is commonly referred to as epistemological rationalism.[3] It
is a period during the 17th century in which philosophers believed
that mathematics and geometry were appropriate foundations to base
philosophical methodology. This philosophical idea was spear-headed by
Descartes, who is of the view that only the intellect (rationality) can give actual
knowledge and this
was demonstrated with mathematics.
Descartes
argued that the method of mathematics consist of two operations,[4]
which include intuition and deduction. He described intuition as an intellectual
activity or vision of such clarity that it leaves no doubt in the mind;[5] while
deduction he described as all necessary inference from facts that are known
with certainty.[6]
What takes intuition and deduction similar is that both involve truth.[7]
Descartes famous “I think therefore I am” quote was seen as the building block
of this philosophical era.
In
relation to antiquity (ancient), looking back on the whole evolution, there was
a reconstruction of rationalism which was met at a nascent stage among the
Phoenicians, it was received and developed by Pre-Socratic Philosophers; while
reaching its acme with Democritus. The opening up of the orient enabled the
Greeks to rediscover the Phoenician origin of their thinking.[8].
In
the Medieval Period, reason was deified and made the sovereign source of
knowledge. The rationalism of Scotus has in it an appreciable tinge of
theosophy.[9]
Theosophy is a form of rationalism peculiar to the middle ages.[10]
In opposition to modern rationalism which strives in the name of reason to do
away with data of Christian Revelation, medieval theosophy attempted to
demonstrate evidently these same revealed data in their full scope and meaning.
RATIONALISM AS OPPOSED TO
EMPIRICISM
This
is basically the point of debate among philosophers of the modern era,
consisting of two major schools: the “Rationalist,” and the “Empiricist.” The
former includes notable figures like Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz; while the
latter includes Hume, Locke: Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz and Berkeley. Here
the rationalist came up with the following reasons in seeming opposition to the
empiricist; Such as:-
i.
Intuition – This Descartes describes as the recognition of self-evident truth.[11]
ii
Deduction – This he described as a necessary inference from other propositions
that are known with certainty.
iii.
The Innate Knowledge of Thesis – The rationalist maintained that man came into
the world with some forms of knowledge, in which he was able to develop.
iv.
The Superiority of Reason Thesis (A Priori) – This is a view that reason
supersedes experience and also that reason consists of the knowledge of a thing
as a thing really is.
On
the other hand, the empiricist countered the views of the rationalists, with
the view that sense perception provides man with all the knowledge he has. This
position holds firmly on Locke’s “tabula
rasa” with the notion that man is an empty slate; without any innate ideas,
and can only come to attain knowledge solely on experience.
In
an effort to strike a balance between these two opposing views of the
rationalist and the empiricist, Immanuel Kant came up with a reconcilable
expression; for he affirms “that the way in which reality appears to us (that
is, the only reality we can know) depends on the contribution of both the
senses and the intellect or mind.[12]
THE RATIONALISM OF RENE
DESCARTES
Rationalism as a philosophical movement gained much
ground in the 17th century. During this time, it was associated with
the use of the method of mathematics in philosophy (Rene Descartes who was a
mathematician could not escaped this method then). Rationalism points to any
view that is based on intellectual and deductive reasoning as a springboard for
knowledge, as opposed to sensual perceptions or dogmas.
Rene
Descartes is known as one of the best pioneers of rationalism. His belief was
that knowledge of eternal truths could be attained by reason alone, and these
things that are eternal are those that are actually true, since Descartes
portrays knowledge as enduring. Evidently, he writes in his letter to Regius:
“...knowledge is conviction based on a reason so strong that it can never be
shaken by any stronger reason.”[13]
It is imperative to state that Descartes did not just jump from a slumber to
begin a treatise on knowledge afforded by reason, no, it was a labour of great
effort, evident in his Meditations.
On
the first day of his meditation, Descartes realized (seemingly the first time
he thought of it) that everything he had accepted up to that moment of his life
had come to him through the senses, but he had occasionally found out that his
senses deceived him, and it is folly for someone to trust that which he had
even once been deceived by. Therefore, he set out to debunk everything he ever
believed. His quest was to find something so certain that it could not be
countered by any other thing. Like Archimedes, who said if he had a place firm
and immovable, he could move the world, Descartes said: “...so I too can hope
for great things if I manage to find just one little thing that is solid and
certain.”[14]
However, it is noteworthy that Descartes did not at once debunk all sensory
knowledge, for instance, he did not doubt the fact that at the time of the
meditation, he was sitting by a fire, holding writing materials. With these in
mind, he proceeds on his methodic doubts, calling his beliefs into question. At
last, having doubted everything he could, including the possibility of a dream
state, or a controlling metaphysical power, he realized that he could not doubt
the very fact that even while he doubted, he was thinking. Therefore, he
arrived at a certainty reached by a
priori means, and which for him established the existence of his mind. It
seems that Descartes did not just seek something which was undeniable to him at
every time, but that which was true even before God and the angels. In one of
his replies he wrote: “What is it to us that someone may make out that the perception
whose truth we are so firmly convinced of may appear false to God or an angel,
so that it is, absolutely speaking, false?”[15] It is little wonder then that he asserted
that our convictions must be so strong that it can never be shaken.
The
rationalism of Descartes does not end with his famous dictum cogito ergo sum, his believe in innate
idea places him in a rationalist school which has Plato as its ancestor.
Descartes opines that his understanding of what a thing is, what truth is, and
thought is, is purely innate. Even in the Fifth Meditation, the mediator
accepts that the truth of the matter on which he reflects are so open to him
that at first encounter, it feels like remembering something he had known
before, or noticing for the first time something that was already in his mind,
believing that these things are known by our native intelligence, devoid of
sensual experience. Indeed, Descartes agrees that all geometrical truths are of
this sort, for even in dream states, the result of adding two to three is five,
and a square never has more or less than four sides.
UNIVERSALITY OF REASON
What
underlies Rene Descartes’ search for the foundations of an indubitable and
universally valid thinking about being is the conflict between the necessity to
believe and the will to know. That conflict follows an undergrounded and
insecure form of human cognition. According to Descartes, the crisis of
cognition comes from the fact that thinking lacks indubitable and solid
principles; and a clearly determined method that could secure veracity of its
results.”1
Descartes
opens by asserting that everyone is equally well endowed with reason. Following
scholastic philosophy, he claims that we are essentially rational animals, and
while we may differ with respect to our accidental or non-essential properties,
we must all share the same form, or essential properties. Given the fact that
we are all equally human, we must all be equally rational as well. People have
different opinions and arrive at the truth with varying degrees of success, not
because some people are more adequately equipped with reason than the others,
but because different people apply their reason in different ways.
The
human thinking constantly repeats the same mistakes and that it is therefore
necessary to get rid of illusions. There is need to disentangle thought from a
cyclical falling into darkness and uncertainty about the truthfulness of its
own performances. Descartes sets a clearly defined objective in his work
(Meditations on the First Philosophy, Discourse on Method). He claims that
there is a need to develop a form of thinking, whose validity will be general;
the results of such thought will be certain and valid in any situation and for
each human being. He calls this thinking a ‘universal science’. It shall lead
humans not only to truthful knowledge, but also to a disclosing of “that which
is.” This universal science will therefore be at the same time ontological, and
to attain this goal, Descartes suggests a method of hyperbolic doubt.
Bearing
in mind the Kantian summation on the process of gaining knowledge via the sense
and reinforced the belief that logic and reason were the ultimate tools in
gaining this; as he clearly expresses: “All our knowledge begins with the
senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and end with reason. There is
nothing higher than reason.”
THE STRUCTURE OF RENE
DESCARTES METHOD
Owing to the rationalist disposition
of Descartes, he is noted to have been chiefly concerned with the problem of
“intellectual certainty.”[16]
He emphasized reason as the basis of epistemological conquest to the knowledge
of reality. He 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 and certitude. This reflected in the way he
philosophized. His philosophical enterprise could be described as driven by a
quest to produce a system of “speculative completeness” which has similarity of
mathematical exactness.[17] 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 order.
The
First Rule is never to accept anything as true unless it is recognized to be
certainly evidently such that it carefully avoids all precipitation and
prejudgment. Also, to include nothing in the conclusions unless it presents
itself so clearly and distinctly that there is no reason for occasion to doubt
it.
The
Second Rule is analysis: this entails the division of the difficulty encountered into many parts as possible, and
as might be required for an easier solution.[18]
The Third Rule is to think in an orderly
fashion when concerned with the search for truth. Beginning with the things
which are simplest and easiest to understand, and gradually and by degrees
reaching toward more complex knowledge, even treating as though ordered
materials which are not necessarily so.[19]
The Fourth Rule is
concerning enumeration; 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]
This Descartes method,
which is mathematical in nature, can be summarized as follows:[21]
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.
PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATION OF
DECARTES METHOD
The cogito ergo sum, “I think, therefore I exist” is the foundation of
the Cartesian method. As mentioned above, Descartes sought out to doubt
everything he had ever known. But why did he had to doubt? He observed that
there could be deception by 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 kind of skepticism. But
it dawned on him that while he was doubting everything, he was also thinking. He
further observed that doubting is a function 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 implications of this Descartes method, will be if he says I
think therefore I am that will mean on the surface level that Rene Descartes is
nothing but a thinking being, and the thinking faculty is the mind which means
that Descartes is nothing more than his mind. So the I in "I AM" is
not the Descartes you see but the faculty of thinking, which makes Descartes to
reduce a human person to the mind which is the thinking being not a knowing
being.
More so, another implication will be that knowledge for Descartes
comes from the intellect but not from the senses. However, the sense experience
puts us in contact with object but can be deceptive thus provides no certainty
that there is anything in the external world that corresponds to the image we
have in our mind. It therefore creates a dichotomy between the sensual
experience and the mental one.
In addition, the introduction of Descartes' methodic doubt into
philosophy was a backdrop against which solipsism subsequently emerged. Solipsism
is a philosophical idea which illustrates that only one's own mind is sure to
exist. Descartes employed the idea as the basis of certain knowledge where he
say 'cogito ego' which means 'I
think' i.e. being aware of his conscious state. However, he escaped the grip of
solipsist consequence where he invoke the benevolence of God.[24]
Furthermore, Ethically one cannot be held responsible for his
action, because human person can claim not to be responsible for his action but
the Mind. If you reduce a person to the mind the person can't be held
responsible when the senses is in act.
Moreover, another implication will be that of mind-body problem
(dualism). If the person is in the mind and the mind is contain in the body,
how will the body and the mind interact?
Finally for him saying he is dismissing all his knowledge, there is
something he is not dismissing which is the fact of certitude that he is
dismissing everything.
EXISTENTIAL IMPORT ON
DESCARTES’ METHOD
There exist an epistemological turning point
as to what could reliably and sufficiently hold for a solid foundation of
knowledge; amidst all that there is about the attainment and pursuit of truth,
the bulwark of philosophical inquiry took an overwhelming transition into two
core methods of
inquiry.
Each of these methods underwent distinct phase of developments through the
channels of rationalism and empiricism.[25]
Progressively,
rationalism became dominantly championed by Rene Descartes, who in no less than
a ground sweeping way, occasioned the spirit and methodological contents of
reasoning into a household philosophical enterprise; in the business of Modern
Philosophy.[26]
The meritorious achievements and contributions of Descartes’ “Discourse on
Method” in the realm of rational inquiry and landscape of philosophy at large,
remains on the scale of an endless count. This notable efforts touches down to
certain areas such as: the constituent of ideas and human nature, conception of
physical objects and bodies, objective inquiry into the existential reality of
being and its relative entities; and above all the foundation of human
knowledge.[27]
Basically,
the focus point of the above mentioned areas would centrally be directed
towards knowledge and its acquisition, which will be indicative on the mark of
importance Descartes’ Discourse on Method bears to the present time. Primarily,
the human mind in its conscious state and capacities has been able to transcend
the illusory state in the discovery of knowledge. For illusions (mere
imaginations) most times, prevents the mind to arrive at the knowledge of a
thing. As to this, Descartes recommends the application of two essential
operations of the mind, namely; “intuition” and “deduction.” The former frees
us from complete doubt concerning the object of our understanding, while the
latter enables us to make necessary inferences from any given fact with
certainty.[28]
Relatively,
his skeptical attitude towards everything that was associated with knowledge in
the pursuit of truth, bore for the intellectual domain the “methodic doubt,” as
doubting all that there is in order to ascertain “evidence” as the requirement
of truth and foundation for all valid knowledge. But this form of universal
doubt is completely actualized in the “Cogito Ergo Sum” that which precedes and
surpasses the introspective and skeptic powers of the universal doubt.[29]
Hence,
the Discourse on Method (which deals with the self-consciousness of the
thinking self), gives to us the most sure and certain structure of foundational
knowledge, in as much as we subject our rational inquiry to an orderly
organized way of thinking.
CONCLUSION
Having
perused Descartes' treatise, Discourse on Method, we have sought out to point
out the view of Descartes which ushered in a modern era in philosophy. We also
delineated his methodology on the right way of reasoning, paying attention also
to its implications and existential imports. As a means of recapitulation, we
portrayed Descartes as a philosopher who upheld that through knowledge comes
from the intellect alone (rationalism). He also believed that all human are
naturally endowed with same capacity of reason but the difference comes from
the application of reason. Descartes formulated a foundational deductive method
after he doubted all seeming beliefs that give the impression of uncertainty
until he arrived at a certain knowledge in which he made the foundation of
other knowledges.
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.
[1] Ed. Roger Crisp, Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 2004) Bk. 1, chap. 1
[2] Hatfield, Gary, "René
Descartes ", The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer
2016 edition) Edward N, Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/Descartes/>
[3] Cf. http:// www.reference
.com/world-viewmodern-rationalism-20f288efcf33c1e9#
[4] Cf. William F. Lawhead, “Voyage of Discovery: A Historical
Introduction to Philosophy,” 2nd Edition, p.228
[5] Cf. Samuel Enoch Stumpf, “Philosophy, History and Problems, Sixth
Edition. p.227
[6] Cf. Samuel Enoch Stumpf, “Philosophy, History and Problems, p.227
[7] Cf. Samuel Enoch Stumpf, “Philosophy, History and Problems, p.227
[8] Cf. http://www.cambridge.org/core.IP
adress: 82.145.222.111.
[9] Cf. http://www3.nd.edu/-maintain/jmc/etext/homp158.htm
[10] Cf. http://www3.nd.edu/-maintain/jmc/etext/homp158.htm
[11] Cf. Samuel Enoch Stumpf, “Philosophy, History and Problems, Sixth
Edition. p. 228
[12] Cf. William F. Lawhead, “Voyage of Discovery: A Historical
Introduction to Philosophy,” 2nd Edition,
[13] Lex Newman, "Descartes' Epistemology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter
2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL
=<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/descartes-epistemology/>.
[14] Jonathan Bennett, Meditation
on First Philosophy. Pp. 5.
[15] Willis Doney (ed), Descartes:
A Collection of Critical Essays: New York, 1967. Pp. 226.
[16] Cf. Enoch Samuel Stumpf, Philosophy: History
and Problems p. 236.
[17] Cf.James Seth, English Philosophers and Schools of Philosophy (New York: Ams Press
Inc., 1973), p. 4.
[20] Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method, p.12
[21] Cf. Rene Descartes, Discourse on method, p. 18
[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] www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
[25] Cf. Etienne Gilson, Modern Philosophy: Descartes to Kant (New York:
Random House, 1964), p. 16.
[26] Cf. Etienne Gilson, Modern Philosophy: Descartes to Kant, p. 55.
[27] Cf. Garrett Thomson, An Introduction to Modern Philosophy
(California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993), p. 12-17.
[28] Cf. Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Volume Four (New
York: Image Books, 1963), p. 84.
[29] Cf. Garrett Thomson, An Introduction to Modern Philosophy
(California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993), p. 15-19.
Comments
Post a Comment