Whether true or not, can you judge the philosopher/mathematician without judging the anatomist?

I had previously read that Descartes believed that animals were automatons devoid of consciousness, but I didn't realise he would have taken it to these extremes.

Much of the never-ending debate about 'qualia' and consciousness can be traced back to the consequences of Cartesian dualism. As can the 'cartesian anxiety' which is subject of philosophical debate. Previously I had always admired Descartes - he was the subject of the first philosophy course I ever attended at University as 'the first modern philosopher'. But I'm now beginning to wonder whether he actually might have closer to an evil genius. It would explain something of what is wrong with the world today.

Okay, I'm no longer a Descarte follower, if that's the case. I can't take the philosophy of someone who couldn't feel cruelty or compassion.

……he actually might have closer to an evil genius. — Wayfarer

Ehhhh….animals were generally treated differently in those days, so it’s consistent they would think of them as medical experiments. I mean, nobody got upset by spearing horses in battle just to get the rider on the ground to make it easier to bash his head in, so…..

Well, sure. But nailing dogs to boards and flaying them alive to make a philosophical point is a whole other level of cruelty. Makes me appreciate Buddhism all over again.

Bottom line…it wasn’t to the participants, which were legion in those days. Lots of literature on the doing, but hardly any on objecting to the doing.

Can’t use our moral compass to judge the righteousness of bygone eras. Well…actually we do, but, legitimately, only as comparison.

It also radically illustrates a profound disconnection from reality, in my opinion. Instructive, considering the oversize role Descartes had in the formation of modernity.

I think they were no more disconnected then we are, what with the present population endlessly fingering keyboards or joysticks on the one hand; on the other, the past population taking a bath once or twice a year.

Benefit of the doubt: what do you mean by disconnection from reality?

Well, my philosophy has been hugely shaped by Buddhism (not to say I'm actually Buddhist). But empathy, 'fellow-feeling', the connectedness of all beings, the fact that all sentient beings are points on a single continuum of existence, are parts of their underlying view of reality. 'All beings tremble before death, knowing this the wise ('Arya') do not kill nor cause to kill', goes one verse of the Dharmapada.

Admirable, to be sure.

I submit, it is only the two world wars and the Holocaust that reformed our empathetic conditioning to its present state with respect to us as humans. While additionally the Civil War changed Americans alone; the others changed everybody.

//This thread has been moved from The Lounge to General Philosophy//

Whilst I see the point of the views expressed above, I'm still very shocked by this discovery. I'm not someone who wants to tear down statues of famous people connected to the slave trade, for instance - the past is a different country, as the saying has it, they do things differently there. So be it. But this case seems uniquely egregious. I can understand how farm animals would be worked to death or cattle treated with extreme harshness throughout history - not that I think it a good thing - but the deliberate infliction of appalling cruelty in support of a so-called philosophical model seems another matter to me.

Descartes' contribution to the world remains unimpacted by whatever cruelties he brought about. It's all ad hom.

And really, to the extent you're trying to dissect him, he is quite different from someone who knowingly injured an animal. From what is written, he thought he wasn't causing any harm. There are different levels of intent here from the person who knowingly versus who unknowingly causes suffering.

And of course how I might fare should you impose the ethical standards of 2523 instead of 2023 I couldn't say, but doubtfully very well.

They say a movie can depict human suffering and death to no end, but showing a dog getting its head blown off cannot happen. I think that's what we're seeing here.

In conclusion, the Rene photo on my nightstand will stay.

A crying dog, Descartes maintained, is no different from a whining gear that needs oil — Wayfarer

If you believe that someone is acting immorally, yet they believe that they aren't, in the absence of an ultimate arbiter of morality, why should your opinion outweigh theirs ?

Personally, I believe that animals are intelligent, can reason, feel pain, experience emotions and have propositional attitudes, though not everyone agrees.

From what is written, he thought he wasn't causing any harm. There are different levels of intent here from the person who knowingly versus who unknowingly causes suffering. — Hanover

Are you really sure? Because according to the following quotes I guess Descartes was a bit aware of causing suffering to animals or at least he had lack of empathy:

1.

When the animals reacted as though they were suffering pain, Descartes dismissed the reaction as no different from the sound of a machine that was functioning improperly — Wayfarer

2.

A crying dog, Descartes maintained, is no different from a whining gear that needs oil." — Wayfarer

As @L'éléphant has pointed out, I am no longer a "fan" or "follower" of Descartes philosophical theories. I will not discredit his works and contributions to modern philosophy, but in my own view there should be limits towards "scientific researchs", specially when they are dangerous to innocent animals.

Personally, I believe that animals are intelligent, can reason, feel pain, experience emotions and have propositional attitudes, though not everyone agrees. — RussellA

I would be even surprised by all of those who in XXI century do not believe that animals can reason and have pain...

It's true that animals were treated differently. Though generally even then they were treated as conscious entities - which Descartes denied - and not hurt just to hurt them. He had an odd view, and one not held by most people whether indigenous or farmers at that time. I am sure they was a lot of animal abuse, but on some level I think we need to view Descartes as delusional. A negative delusion. It takes a fairly high level of idiocy to not think animals are likely experiencers. We wouldn't react to some random person back then treating animals poorly. He came from a very well off family and was well educated. IOW he had some space and time to mull and experience things. Of course Christianity had it's effect and the general civilization vs. nature prejudices of urban (and educated people). But given that he is presented as a genius, I think it's fair enough to find it all rather shocking.

Are you really sure? Because according to the following quotes I guess Descartes was a bit aware of causing suffering to animals or at least he had lack of empathy: — javi2541997

He believed they were not experiencers. It's a kind of monumental stupidy and denial of the obvious. It doesn't mean he's a sadist. But such denials are problematic and for the animals this difference doesn't matter much.

Can’t use our moral compass to judge the righteousness of bygone eras. — Mww

Well, we can, especially if other people at that time were different. IOW we can say that he had the failing of his time, which others did not. Which might or might not put them on a higher moral ground. But we can also judge him for the quality of his brain/mind. How could he not realize this? I doubt anyone here would spend any time judging some cruel to animals person who was a cobbler then. But here we have someone who goes down in history, more or less as a great person. And for what? Well, for his perceptions and thinking. He would certainly have heard of St. Francis of Asissi. He certainly could have talked to people who train and work with animals to see what they thought of animals. I am sure many, many of these people assumed that animals were experiencers and acted based on that assumption. (yes, some of the criticism aimed at descartes could be aimed at his category in general, and scientists had it as pretty much taboo to indicate that animals were experiencere up into the 70s. ) He had other philosophers with similar ideas: Aristotle, Aquinas, after him Kant. I think it might say something about people who spent too much time up in their heads. This can produce all sorts of great stuff...but at the same time it can manage to make you miss the completely obvious.

He didn't say sentio ergo sum, for example. I feel therefore I am. His bias toward animals may be connected to oddities and biases in his philosophy. He may have felt compelled to have a dualism, for example.

The issue with Descartes is muddy. Many of his statements appear to show he thought of animals as mere automatons.

But there are other passages which are less clear. In a letter to his friend Mersenne, I believe he said something to the effect that he cannot know whether animals are automata or not, because we cannot see into their hearts, roughly stated.

It is true, however, that many of Descartes followers did think of animals as mere machines and participated in animal cruelty. Though barbaric to us - the reasoning they had was not completely crazy, it had some merit.

But it was also evident to others that this was insane, like Hume, for instance.

But it was also evident to others that this was insane, like Hume, for instance. — Manuel

I think it's fair to view it as insane or delusional. Descartes wasn't insane, but you do need some kind of negative delusion (if based on culture and religion and other biases) to primarily assume or conclude that animals are not experiencers.

If Descartes was focused on argue that "they were not experiencers" he could have done the experiments with another examples, such as odours.
We can say he wasn't a sadist, but at least a psychopath when he didn't felt any emotion or empathy towards a dog crying.

Agreed. Descartes is very often ridiculed in pop-science books, and sometimes even in philosophy. I think it's quite an ignorant view, because for one, he was highly respected at the time and for another, it's not as if were alive back then, we would have known that, say, his dualism is known to be false or that we do not believe experience to be the thing we are most certain we have.

If we assume body to be mechanistic, his metaphysics were quite sensible. But it is also true that viewing animals in such a manner intuitively looks quite grotesque.

Hew was simply a sadistic bastard. And dishonest. That whole "Nobody in here but me and God" palaver was published to mollify the church.

Descartes was ready to publish The World in the early 1630s, but was stopped in his tracks by news of the arrest of Galileo. Like Galileo, Descartes had accepted and relied on the findings of Copernicus. Descartes was so afraid, he almost burned all his papers but his pride eventually overcame his fear, and in 1641, he published Principles of Philosophy, though it was a shadow of his original work. The World wasn't published until 1664 — 14 years after his death. https://www.strangescience.net/descartes.htm

Descartes believed that animals were no more than organic automata. He contended that they were incapable of feeling pain or emotion, and that they were more akin to machines than living beings.https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/01/scientists-can-be-cruel.html

This, in spite of the fact that he was doing actual science as well, and by then everyone knew the similarities between canine and human anatomy. He said animals have no feelings or sensations - they only act as if they did. But never explained how non-feeling machines could act as if, or why they should, or why God created human-like machines before man.
And he's said to have started with his wife's dog, which means he must have believed women had no feelings, either. No, it's all lies - egotistical, bombastic hypocrisy.

But it was hugely influential on the science of succeeding centuries: encouraged callous men to let their worst nature rule their actions in the name of Holy Science, in the same way that St. Paul encouraged ambitious men to let their worst nature rule in the name of Holy Church.
Those two were the reigning evil spirits of the modern era.

As L'éléphant has pointed out, I am no longer a "fan" or "follower" of Descartes philosophical theories. I will not discredit his works and contributions to modern philosophy, but in my own view there should be limits towards "scientific researchs", specially when they are dangerous to innocent animals. — javi2541997

Whether Descartes liked to harm animals and created an argument that they didn't feel pain so as to justify his sadism is possible, but that's not consistent at least with what he said.

I wouldn't want many ancient scientific research conducted today, like bloodletting that was practiced for over 2000 years and helped no one and killed many. If we're looking at outcomes, the bloodletters were far worse. If we're looking at intent, then we have to try to figure out what they really thought, and unless you can show Descartes knew the dogs felt pain, you can't condemn him for that harm in the same way as someone who didn't know.

It's not that it was okay to harm animals years prior, but the fact is people weren't aware of its immorality as they are today, so imposing that level of condemnation seems inappropriate. This decontextualizing behavior and imposing future standards on people retroactively will condemn all of humankind for one thing or another. I guess it's possible, for example, that a Neanderthal fully appreciated the 2023 concept of human rights and looked on in horror as his cave-mates engaged in prehistoric barbarity, but I don't think we can hold everyone in that time period to such an enlightened standard.

I see your point and I am partially agree in the fact that is not equitable to judge ethics with the mind of nowadays and past times. Human rights, dignity, integrity, ethics, etc... have all evolved with the pass of the centuries and it wasn't easy to establish rigid pillars of human respect and understanding.

Nonetheless, to be honest, I think it is not a good excuse to say that "Descartes was not aware of his immorality" as we are today. If you hit a dog with a stick, you would hear a painful scream and probably tears in his eyes. Whenever someone (who at least his mind works correctly) sees this terrible action, would be feel sad and bad because it is not funny neither entertaining look at the suffering of an animal. It is a basic thought and the principles of ethics and morality come from Ancient Greece, where all the philosophers already debated on "the harm done to others and animals" and even Aristotle also wrote some paragraphs about...

So, no I will not excuse Descartes.

My sentiments as well.

The author of the SEP article on animal consciousness, re: “… It would be anachronistic to read ideas about consciousness from today back into the ancient literature.…”, seems to hold a similar inclination.

Though generally even then they were treated as conscious entities - which Descartes denied….. — Bylaw

He denied reason and soul to animals, in “First Principles…..”, as distinguishing conditions. I find little support for the notion that animals were generally treated as conscious entities.

Whether Descartes liked to harm animals and created an argument that they didn't feel pain so as to justify his sadism is possible, but that's not consistent at least with what he said. — Hanover

That is the definition of hypocrisy. And why did he "believe" that this "belief" of his required demonstrating over and over? How would that have served science? What was to be learned from the crucifixion of yet another helpless animal?

unless you can show Descartes knew the dogs felt pain, you can't condemn him for that harm in the same way as someone who didn't know. — Hanover

Sure I can! He repeatedly demonstrated the exact opposite of his claim. He committed deliberate cruelties to show that he didn't believe animals have souls. Well, who doubted it in the first place? And if animals really don't count, and their screams are the mere screeching of drooling, shitting, steaming, bleeding machines, which bear no imaginable resemblance to mechanical constructs, you still have to discount the harm to his wife and whatever human children had loved his other victims.

I guess it's possible, for example, that a Neanderthal fully appreciated the 2023 concept of human rights and looked on in horror as his cave-mates engaged in prehistoric barbarity, — Hanover

What evidence that Neanderthals engaged in brutality toward other people? Renaissance Europeans certainly did, lavishly and inventively, that we know. Stone age peoples hunted with crude weapons, but the objective was to serve an existential necessity, not a side-show.
And... If we are to equate known Enlightenment sensibility with an unknown Paleolithic sensibility, also look in between, at the attitudes of African and North American native peoples. Somehow, they were able to discern the similarity between humans and other animals, thousands of years before educated Europeans discovered the same thing.

Sure I can! He repeatedly demonstrated the exact opposite of his claim. He committed deliberate cruelties to show that he didn't believe animals have souls. Well, who doubted it in the first place? And if animals really don't count, and their screams are the mere screeching of drooling, shitting, steaming, bleeding machines, which bear no imaginable resemblance to mechanical constructs, you still have to discount the harm to his wife and whatever human children had loved his other victims. — Vera Mont

Descartes held to a view that human beings alone were able to reason and that reason arose from their immortal soul, distinguishing humans from animals, that were purely corporeal machines. That was integral to his philosophy and he could not depart into a theory that offered immortal souls to animals, as that would be contrary to Christian teachings.

From this he was led to the necessary conclusion that animals didn't feel pain, but were simply machines responding to stimuli and reacting, as noted, like a squeeky wheel.

See:

https://www.friesian.com/jowers.htm#:~:text=According%20to%20Descartes%2C%20if%20animals,prove%20that%20they%20have%20souls.

https://webs.wofford.edu/williamsnm/back%20up%20jan%204/hum%20101/animals%20are%20machines%20descartes.pdf

To the extent we consider bloodletting primtive medicine (the releasing of bad humors), we should similarly consider Descartes primitive philosophy (even referring to the pineal gland as the seat of the soul). He tried to hammer out the physical world in a way consistent with his philosophy and it led to an unacceptable result by today's standards.

What evidence that Neanderthals engaged in brutality toward other people? — Vera Mont

I note the evolving moral sensibilities that have occurred in my lifetime and I extrapolate backwards to draw the conclusion that today's ethical adherence is higher than yesterday's. Is that controversial?