In Descartes’ fourth section (I believe) he claims that because he thinks he exists. This assumption is completely plausible. There is no way to challenge your own existence. It is the one thing that, to each individual, is permanent, no matter what else around him changes. This, however, is the only part of Descartes’ reasoning that I find completely plausible. As he continues on he discusses the existence of God and how there must be a perfect being above him to allow him to think. This, though slightly less plausible, still convinces me enough to support his argument. However, his next claim, that we all must abandon every assumption we hold about the world around us to allow us to discover the world for ourselves, is not only implausible but downright impossible.

First I will discussion how it is implausible, then I will explain how even Descartes himself demonstrated the impossibility of such a task. If it was possible for a person sitting in a stove-heated room to abandon everything he knew about the world, then when he began to observe and create his own assumptions about the world he would be limited to the space he can observe, i.e. the stove heated room. Since his mind is a blank slate the only things he could be sure existed are the components of this room. His entire world view would be based upon this room. This would become the starting point for all of this thought processes. Not only would this make his world view very obscure, it would also severely limit the purpose Descartes had for abandoning his knowledge in the beginning. No matter what method a person uses to understand the world, they must have a starting point. Now rather than the education he received as a child being his basis for understanding the world, his own personal assumptions and observations about this room would be his initial influence. To me this seems completely absurd.

In addition to this method being implausible, Descartes also, unknowingly it seems, demonstrates how impossible it is to employ. During his time in the stove-heated room, Descartes contemplates some proofs on triangles. In his attempt to prove to himself the correctness of one such proof, he fails to abandon all of his previous knowledge about triangles. In his contemplation he holds onto the fact that the three angles of a triangle must sum 180 degrees. Never does he record figuring this information out for himself. Rather he failed to abandon this knowledge he learned in his youth. In his attempt to demonstrate the usefulness of his own method he actually points out its flaws.

It is a shame that Descartes did not recognize such a flaw in his work for he had such an influence on the way people thought about the world during his time period. His empirical method did revolutionize the way scientists conduct their experiments and research, but his intention to bring this thought process to the masses failed because of errors like the one I have just discussed.

The Enlightened Worldview

I find it very interesting that all of the Enlightened minds we have read in the second half of this semester have taken a similar attitude towards people. Starting with Montague we have seen these men display a general faith in mankind. Montague placed his faith in other cultures, he believed they were more "civilized" and Europeans had much to learn from them. Shakespeare demonstrated his faith in humanity through his writings. He encoded many social and political messages within his plays and he expected his audiences to be able to decipher his work. By publishing his work and thinking the public would accept it, Galileo displayed his faith in mankind. He thought they would see the truth in his discoveries and embrace his revolutionary ideas. Finally, DesCartes believes all humans have an equal ability to reason. How each person uses this ability may differ, but each person possesses the same potential. Few people during DesCartes' time were willing to make such a generalization, placing all of humanity on the same level.
Many people argue that to this day this trend has continued. I have not seen enough of the world yet to make such a generalization. But from my experience so far, it seems that the "educated" sector is socially more liberal, which seems to be the modern day equivalent of the Enlightened thinkers. Does this mean that education opens your eyes to humanity's abilities? Does a greater education allow people to view people with more compassion? Or are there just as many people in the "uneducated" sector who share these beliefs but just do not have the means to vocalize them?

We haven't talked about this much in class, but being the history nerd that I am, I keep getting stuck on this point. The Church was under so much attack and looked so bad at this point in history (due to the Great Schism, the Reformation, the religious wars, etc) those in power were willing to take drastic measures to preserve what little power they still maintained. The Medieval mindset was one of repetition. No one expected change; life was very cyclical for almost 1000 years. The Church controlled everything, even how people thought, and no one ever considered challenging this way of life. However, as the Petrarch led the revolution in Italy towards Humanism, certain people in society began to embrace change. Reading the rediscovering, and translating for themselves, ancient texts by Greek and Roman philosophers, these forward thinkers began to realize it was "ok" to challenge authority. The process began in the 14th century and by the 17th century (when Galileo lived) it was still in its infancy. People were, however, now making some attempts to explore their worlds, make their own observations, draw their own conclusions, and challenge the current doctrine and truths.

This "thinking revolution" posed a great threat to the Church. They had controlled everything for so many years, they did not know how to handle such change. It has been a pattern through out history, who ever is in power wants to do whatever it takes to ensure they remain in power. This is not an outrageous claim, but in doing so, the Church prevented itself from incorporating scientific discoveries and other revelations into its doctrine. The actual discoveries made by someone like Galileo or Newton did not threaten the power of the Church, they could have been easily assimilated into the belief system. But, because the Church was so afraid of losing power, this was not an option. Thus, the Scientific Revolution, and later the Enlightenment, bloomed as oppositions to the Church, rather than as physical and philosophical support for the Church.

I'm not really sure where I was going with this post, or why I ended up where I did. But these were some thought that have been going on in my mind during our classes recently and I just felt like writing them down. Sorry for the "stream of consciousness" writing.