Question by Love Doctor: Descartes and rationalism?
Descartes and other philosophers of the early modern period are often referred to as “rationalists.” What is “rationalism?” Why does Descartes believe that rationalism is the best starting point for philosophy? Do you agree with him? Explain, using relevant examples if necessary.
Best answer:
Answer by Bob A rationalist believes in thinking and ideas as the the path to knowledge.
A empiricist believes in observation and experience as the path to knowledge.
One of Descartes beliefs is that a person can be fooled by his senses. Many variables affect how one sees an event . Different people experience the same event very differently. Therefore the senses are not to be trusted.
Descartes was a absolute rationalist. I don’t agree with that. There is much to be learned from observation. The minds interpretation of the events is another variable but not the only one as Descartes seems to claim.
Question by Hunter T: What is a creative modern day job for René Descartes.?
I have a project to do and i have to think of a good job for Rene Descartes… im drawing blank. it has to be creative. in case you don’t know he was a philosopher, creater of geometry and the coordinate graph, and he was also an avid scientist. go here for more info…
Some five centuries ago two donkeys on two legs proclaimed scientific reasoning. Their assertions of the so-called scientific method to find about the truth in things has misled sciences ever since.
Rene Descartes proclaimed the following presumptions in his treatise Discourse on Method for looking for the truth in our world:
- The first rule was never to accept anything as true unless I recognized it to be evidently such: that is, carefully to avoid precipitation and prejudgment, and to include nothing in my conclusions unless it presented itself so clearly and distinctly to my mind that there was no occasion to doubt it.
- The second was to divide each of the difficulties which I encountered into as many parts as possible, and as might be required for an easier solution.
- The third was to think in an orderly fashion, beginning with the things which were simplest and easiest to understand, and gradually and by degrees reaching toward more complex knowledge, even treating as though ordered materials which were not necessarily so.
- The last was always to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I would be certain that nothing was omitted.
This reasoning does not admit anything except what is visible to the naked eye, nothing else. We believe in what is exposed to our senses. If a thing is not subject to our senses then, according to the genius Descartes, this thing is non-existent. So for example if three billions of people today believe in God and we cannot see God or hear God then God does not exist.
What bullshit!
The entire intelligible world is dismissed by this idiot at an abrupt sweep of his hand.
Thus and according to Descartes we cannot believe in religious texts for there is no proof they are divine scriptures. We cannot neither believe in God’s word for we need proof. We cannot believe in God’s angels, God’s messengers, God’s messages, nor can we believe in a day of judgment, where everyone shall be brought up to account for his, or her, own deeds in this life. No more belief in the Hereafter is necessary, for according to Descartes we cannot have proof of it. In this way the whole metaphysical existence that explains our reality is dismissed.
But with his wisdom Descartes forgets the big essential questions and that humans are in need for that. Who cares! As long as Descartes explains things. But he does not explain anything, nothing at all. Blind as he is to close his eyes to reality and truth in its ultimate sense, he recommends some erroneous rules to understand the universe, our existence and our purpose in life.
According to Descartes, there is no purpose for man’s existence for e cannot verify the empiric validity of such assumption.
Cartesian Scientific thinking and reasoning has dominated the world ever since the time of Descartes. Annulling all intelligible knowledge and reducing things to material existence. But in his superficial thinking Descartes omits from thought the most important questions of ultimate knowledge. He was blinded to the enigmatic problematic of the universe including his own existence and thought. No science, then ventures into such mysteries looking for explanations and light.
Francis Bacon, another genius on two legs, suggests in his scientific method in his treatise Novum Organum:
That such a method required:
(1) accepting as “truth” only clear, distinct ideas that could not be doubted, (2) breaking a problem down into parts, (3) deducing one conclusion from another, and (4) conducting a systematic synthesis of all things.
Descartes based his entire philosophical approach to science on this deductive method of reasoning.
In short, Bacon’s method required (1) accumulating a store of particular empirical observations, (2) from these inductively inferring lesser axioms, (3) from these inductively inferring middle axioms, (4) and then proposing the most general of notions, each in progressive steps.
If we read modern meaning into the language used by Bacon, we might see a foreshadowing of the idea of a hypothesis in a “lesser axiom” and a theory in the “middle axiom.” This would make his method agree with the mature conception of science in use today; however, the context indicates that his ideas were not yet so fully developed.
Bacon also argued that this inductive method “must be used not only to discover axioms, but also notions,” which may be taken to correspond to the concept of a paradigm, but again this may be reading into the text. In any case, it is clear that Bacon’s view of the scientific method is progressive and cumulative.
The radical commitment to empiricism advocated by Bacon may imply for some that he did not accept any knowledge that was not received by personal observation.
In the same way we observe how Bacon advises us to use a certain method to find truth about knowledge. He like Descartes suggests that we do not believe in anything except of what we can verify and prove.
Again, another genius blinds himself to the intelligible world and limits his vision and knowledge to what he sees and can experience.
For such a genius there is no need for a God for we cannot see or hear or smell God and thus the whole religious argument is brought to ashes just like the bones of Bacon and Descartes.
The who question of what we see is presumably what we see. There is no one proof for what we see. There is no one proof for matter, its presence, its origin, its function, its nature and its finality. How did matter, subject of human knowledge come about? What made it in its shape and form, color and what controls its atoms? Who has created atoms? Who has assembled atoms together to be what it is?
But according to these two geniuses there is no need to break our heads of such problems. Matter is there in all shapes and forms, but in order to explain it we simply have to apply four idiotic rules, dismissing all other ultimate questions of the reality of matter, time, space and energy.
No one has access to what atoms are, quarks or strings, how did they come about and why? No one knows, not even Einstein had access to such knowledge, the reality and truth of things.
How naïve can Descartes and Bacon be along side their imbecile scientific followers.
What they see is false knowledge and what they miss is real knowledge.
Hypatia and Simplicio discuss the basics of metaphysics: what is it about? And what is the input of science on metaphysical questions? Is a theory in philosophy something different from a theory in science? Video Rating: 5 / 5
Contents: By Descartes: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking the Truth in the Sciences; By Voltaire: Letters on the English; By Rousseau: Discourse Upon the Origin and the Foundation of the Inequality Among Mankind; Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar; By Hobbes: Of Man, Being the First Part of Leviathan.
Question by mathew m: how did modern science cause a rethinking for all philosophers after descartes?
Best answer:
Answer by trish the dish below is an excellent site on descartes. basically he found a way to intellectually and scientifically erase doubt. seems to me he helped along “enlightenment” per say……as he helped hume, locke along etc. fascinating reading. hope this helped!!!
Why do people visit places where other people were born, lived, fought, or died? What does it mean to be a tourist? There was no time to waste on October 3rd, 2008, the 18th anniversary of the German reunification. This journey along the German autobahn A 38, from East to West, from Leipzig to Göttingen, could only take one day. 21 sleepless hours, to be precise. This is not a movie. This is a wild 23-minutes crossover combining elements of documentary, mockumentary, travel clip, freestyle, different subcultures, YouTube chic, and a load of explicit or obscure allusions to German and Western culture. Thus it follows a tangential structure. Most of the things are just mentioned or shown briefly, it is more like an index to actual contents. Among others, Gustav II Adolf, Nietzsche, Goethe, Cortázar, Pushkin, and infamous German field marshal von Hindenburg are referenced. There is also room for phantasmagoric approaches, like an excessive dialogue about the origin of ABCs hit series Lost. A visit to the worlds biggest rose collection with more than 8300 breeds represents historys vulgar romanticism. But also the battlegrounds of the great European wars are passed by, as are poets and philosophers birthplaces, and obscenely large national monuments. Wikipedia is quoted briefly to exemplify the triumph of in-situ knowledge; Creative Commons music by Revolution Void adds some style, not to forget the voice-over hommage à Werner Herzog. Video Rating: 3 / 5
Product Description In a clear and lively style, this text introduces the work of seven founding fathers of modern philosophy: Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant…. More >>
Product Description This guide brings together eighteen original interpretations of the modern philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche. The contributors succeed brilliantly in placing their figures within a rich historical, cultural, and philosophical context, noting some of the important ways in which their ideas and arguments were shaped by the intellectual currents of the time, and how they in turn shaped subsequent philosophical debate…. More >>
