Skip to main content

Three further points on Descartes




In yesterday's entry I discussed the idea of substance in early-modern European philosophy, with especial emphasis on Descartes.


I made no criticisms of the views under discussion: simply presented the connections of ideas as I understood and understand them.


Today, I'll make four quick critical observations:


1)  The search for what counts as a "substance" seems misguided. Remember, Aristotle used the word roughly as we would use the word "thing." There is no real call for anguished meditation on what counts as a "thing." It depends upon the context in which one uses the word. Indeed, the vagueness of the word adds to, rather than detracts from, its value within a natural language.

2) As everyone knows, Descartes' first solid premise was "I think" and his first inference from that was "I exist." This seems to presume a certain notion of a thinking substance, and to call it "I." If we're going to pursue methodical doubt, we can easily pursue it further than that, dissolving substance along the way. Thinking goes on. There are such things as thoughts. That is true. Some of those thoughts make a collection which might be called "I." But to phrase that fact as "I think" presumes that "I" am a thinking substance, and Descartes is pulling a controversial notion out of a hat by sleight of hand.


3) If we get to "I think therefore I exist" and understand it solipsistically we might end up stuck there. Descartes argument getting himself out of solipsism requires a God who would not deceive him or allow him to be deceive on such a point as the existence of the external world. But since we sometimes are deceived, it is clear that whatever God we might believe exists, does sometimes allow some deceptions. How are we creatures to be sure which deceptions he does and which he doesn't allow?


4) I'm reminded of a man who once said, "I'm a firm solipsist myself and wonder why more people aren't." Don't know why, though.
Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryDecember 20, 2013 at 8:40 AM

    Regarding your fourth point, you are probably thinking of this:

    “As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me.”

    ― Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge Its Scope and Limits

    ReplyDelete
  2. ChristopherDecember 20, 2013 at 9:17 AM

    Thanks. I will hereafter refrain from attributing it to a "man," even if I don't specifically retain Ms Ladd-Franklin's name. But your quote makes me wonder. Russell presents this as if Ladd-Franklin was serious and, so, necessarily confused. It seems more likely she was puling his leg, and he was inadequately subtle in his appreciation of this "eminent logician." It would be interesting to see the actual letter, if that survives.

    ReplyDelete
  3. HenryDecember 20, 2013 at 9:44 AM

    I found that quotation by googling and then copied and pasted it from a website. I have now searched the text of the book on amazon.com and offer the following minor corrections. "Ladd Franklin" has no hyphen. (But googling the name reveals that it does, so the error may be Russell's or his typesetter's.) In the final sentence, "her" should be "this." Finally, in the title of the book, a colon should follow "Human Knowledge."

    The rest of Russell's paragraph following the quotation criticizes those who carry Cartesian doubt too far. Amazon.com does not allow copying and pasting from texts of books, and I am unwilling to type it myself, but I recommend reading it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more