Descrate's Assumptions

Descarte argues that the only thing we can be sure are real are our thoughts. This led our class to begin a discussion on the legitimacy of our own senses to observe our reality correctly. According to Descarte these observations are the only thing we can be sure are true. However, there are many instances where people experience sensory experiences or even incorrect thoughts. How would Descarte explain such happenings?

Through out recorded history many people have developed incorrect assumptions about the world based on false thoughts and interpretations of their sensory observations. Yet, according to Descarte these things were the only things such people could be 100% sure were real.

This leads me to question what reality is. Could reality simply be each person's own interpretation of the world around us? Can reality be different for every person? This seems to contradict the general connotation of reality. Reality is supposed to be free from personal interpretations and the same for everyone. If this is the case, then is our hold on reality as secure as we think it is? Do we even really know what reality is?

While in class I also wondered if people have the ability to realize when their sensory observations are false? Can reason and/or logic allow people to recognize this flaw?

I think Descarte's assumption that the only thing we can be 100% sure exists is too bold. Yet, when I really sit down and contemplate it, I can't think of any more logical assumptions. It is very scary to think that we may be living in an illusion. Maybe this is why it seems so implausible that everything around us may not exist. But it seems impossible to prove that anything exists but your own personal thoughts.

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.

Galileo

The first thing that came to my mind when reading the expert from Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief Systems of the World- Ptolemaic & Copernican were the similarities in structure between it and Euthyphro. Not only is the structure of both pieces almost identical, the overall tones also mimic each other.

For the structure, Euthyphro and Simplicio are characterized in very similar matters. Both are supposed experts in their respective fields, and yet their ideas are easily refuted by their "challenger." Obviously, Salviati is Aristotle's parallel. Both take very sarcastic tones with their opponent and openly poke fun at their ignorance. Both men are also very planned in the attacks they make. They lull their opponents into a false sense of security about their own ideas, and then quickly bring them down with their logical reasoning. It appears that both characters intend to embarrass their opponents, simply to accentuate their view's validity. Dialogue is also broken up into four days, each presenting a different argument. This mimics the four arguments Euthyphro presents, all of which Aristotle refutes.

The overall tone of both pieces is similar as well. In both texts, the man refuting the ideas held by the "expert" (and society) takes a very sarcastic and at times openly hostile attitude. It is obvious that both Aristotle and Salviati lack respect for their opponents. Both believe their opponent's theories are bogus and they cannot understand how any person could belief such things. Neither man ever directly states these opinions, but through the tones they use it is obvious to the readers that both men feel this way.

While reading this excerpt, it was obvious how influential Aristotelian reasoning was on Galileo. His entire piece is modeled after it. Galileo lived during the Renaissance, a time when ancient texts were being rediscovered and held in high regard. Therefore, it only seems practical that Galileo would model his argument after one of the greatest, in his opinion, philosophers.

Of Cannibals and The Jesuit Relations

Recently in class we have begun discussing Of Cannibals and we will soon discuss The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. Both of these sources deal with "barbarians" or "savages" from the New world, as viewed by European contemporaries. In both texts the authors have had their own eyewitness accounts or have heard eyewitness accounts of the culture and lifestyles of the aboriginal societies within the New World. Such accounts appear to have made the men question the culture of Europe. I noticed that both documents encourage their European readers to look inside themselves and consider how their actions may be more barbarous than those whom they refer to as barbarians.

Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, when these pieces were written, was going through large social and intellectual revolutions. There was a large outpouring of political and social theories, criticizing the medieval mindset that had its grips on Europe for so long. These documents appear to be part of this proliferation of writing.

Based on that conclusion, I wish to hypothesize, as we attempted to do in class, that these papers were written to initiate change within Europe. While the writers may have cared about the "savages" in the New World, the view Europeans had of them was not their main concern. This was simply a tool employed by these men to bring to head a larger social issue in a time period when they could not directly state such grievances.

This conclusion made me wonder what effect photographs of the same cultures described in these two essays would have on the people of Europe. I don't believe they would cause the introspection these essays can cause. Rather, it seems that such photographs could support the Euro-centric beliefs held by the majority of people. We often talked about the differences between texts and photographs. In this instance I believe that the photographs have many more limitations than the texts would. The emotive value of such photographs may impact Europeans. However, the background necessary to explain their cultural practices (cannibalism in particular) that came with the texts and pointed on the hypocrisies of European society, would not come with the photographs. Thus, this would negate any emotional impacts they possess.

The Threat of Mediocrity

Are our discussions really mediocre?

I'm in no way attacking your statement Anton but what you said really struck me. Before we discussed this in class I was always impressed with our discussions. From talking with people from other CIE classes, it always seemed as though our class held impressive discussions. I've heard a lot of complaints about classes where no one wants to contribute or where one person dominates or even where the professor dominates the discussion. We never have any of those issues. Our discussions always flow very well and everyone always seemed comfortable enough to share their honest opinions.

However, since Anton made this statement I have been thinking more about the actual content of our discussions. It is true that at times we talk about "significant" and interesting issues, but there are also many times when I feel like we are simply bantering back and forth. This seems to be what is bothering Anton. But for me, if we held serious, profound discussions all the time our discussions would falter. There needs to be times of lightheartedness and insignificance. I honestly don't believe that humans can be serious all the time; its against our nature. This is why we all need to let loose and have fun once in a while. The same must go for our discussions. We need to treat our mental state in the same manner as our physical state.

So as much as I understand Anton's frustration, I think that it is important to have these periods of mediocrity in our discussions. Without them, our discussions could become tired and worn out. The lightheartedness allows for interesting twists on our discussions and allows people to think about various issues in ways they normally wouldn't.