Descartes' philosophizing epitomizes the sort of reasoning that made me never want to study philosophy. He begins with "Cogito, ergo sum" -- very well in itself. Then he says that he proceeds to radical doubting of the existence of everything. And immediately leaps to the conclusion that there is a God, proving the existence of that God (conceived of as perfection) by, and only by, his own reasoning, thought, perception.
First objection:
Now, why should I or anyone credit his thought/reasoning/perception as persuasive in the least? Why should I not believe that he is one of those he describes so precisely as "those who with more than a due confidence in their own powers, are precipitate in their judgments and want the patience requisite for orderly and circumspect thinking"? He certainly lacks no confidence in his own powers.
And why should I take it that his reasoning mind offers a surer proof of the existence of anything than my own five senses?
Second objection:
Descartes begins by describing cities and buildings as infinitely more perfect and more beautiful when designed by a single person than when they grow as a product of accretions by many people. Ah, but who decides what is more perfect or what constitutes beauty? If I prefer the patchwork village to the Parthenon, does that demonstrate a deficiency in my intellect, or does it perhaps suggest that beauty and truth themselves, as described by Descartes, are culturally limited constructs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment