• _db
    3.6k
    Descartes is often seen as the thinker who marks the start of "modern" philosophy. With his heightened awareness of epistemology, to his reformulation of causation, to his most lasting legacy of dualism, Descartes is the canonized transition between pre-modern Aristotelian teleological metaphysics and modern epistemological metaphysics.

    Is this Cartesian legacy something to be cherished, or something to be overcome? Certainly there are many thinkers who believe that the Cartesian switch was an error of judgement, one that philosophy ever since has tried to work with, with poor results or have tried to set straight again. Usually these kinds of criticisms come from avowed Scholastics, or perhaps traditionalist Aristotelians/Platonists.

    More specifically, how should we view Cartesian dualism and the shift in focus on epistemology more than naive realist metaphysics? Cartesianism has such a lasting legacy that it's difficult to pull oneself out of its grasp (it comes as intuitive) - one may think this as an argument for Cartesianism or post-Cartesian metaphysics. Did the ancients' and medievals' struggle with the same questions? Can Cartesianism be applied to the metaphysics of the pre-moderns?

    If not, does the Cartesian legacy offer us anything of value other than historic novelty and a guide as to what not to do?
  • A Human
    1
    Descartes did a sneaky thing that has caused the ruin of psychology now....it's doomed.

    He used 'Mind' as a substitution for 'Soul' to backdoor it into scientific discussion.
  • Hanover
    12k
    I embrace Cartesianism. He was right that there is something distinct between mental states and physical states and we aren't really any closer to figuring out how the two interact today than we were when he identified the problem.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    It-was-a-dis-AS-ter. --Searle

    It was needed at the time. Physics as we know it was trying to be born.
  • _db
    3.6k
    Yes, indeed Descartes was primarily focused on finding a metaphysical basis for science, i.e. a metaphysics in the service of science. The question remains, however, is whether or not science actually needed this basis.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    The question remains, however, is whether or not science actually needed this basis.darthbarracuda
    I guess you could outline some alternate history.
  • _db
    3.6k
    Well, I mean science developed in conjunction with Descartes. Instead of science depending on metaphysics, it would be rather that metaphysics analyzes how science is possible, diagnosing the underlying structure.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    Diagnosing the underlying structure of what?
  • _db
    3.6k
    Of intelligibility, of subject matter, of joints-of-reality, etc
  • Wilco Lensink
    9
    I think that any idea can have positive and negative influences as distorted in the minds of people. The important thing I think is to look at both view points and place them in a context. Why do people feel this is a harmful philosophy, why do they feel it is a beneficial philosophy?

    Without thought and language we would truly be like any other animal living on instinct. So the cogito ergo sum saying seems to imply at least that due to our capability to think we may call ourselves "human" and set ourselves apart from other species of animals.

    However, descartes philosophy is interpreted also negatively in which case it is usually referred to as cartesian dualism. Dualism is the intuitive idea that there are always two sides of a coin so to speak: body and mind, day and night, white and black, etc. And I think no one would deny that contrast gives rise to perception. However, the "I" is always inclined to choose a side. Christ for example, when proclaiming what was good, in a way created the Anti Christ: that which is "bad" or "evil".

    So thinking in strict dualities may be harmful, connecting these opposites and somehow creating a unity of complementary pairs out of them seems to be the solution.

    Mind and body interact in immensely complex ways, we may not understand these mechanisms, but for sure these "realms" are not separate from each other. Without a body there would be no world to sense and there would be nothing to refer to. But without the mind nothing would be able to refer, there would be no "I" and experience would probably be an incoherent primordial soup, slightly laced by instinct.

    Atop that, one must always take into account the difference between the actual words and the interpretation of the words.
  • Hoo
    415
    Mind and body interact in immensely complex ways, we may not understand these mechanisms, but for sure these "realms" are not separate from each other. Without a body there would be no world to sense and there would be nothing to refer to. But without the mind nothing would be able to refer, there would be no "I" and experience would probably be an incoherent primordial soup, slightly laced by instinctWilco Lensink
    Good points. The "I" that pretends to think learned a language as a child bumping into objects. The "i" is passionate, too. There is something profoundly "trans-physical" about words, though. Maybe this is what the legacy offers us, a focus on to what degree reality is made of (the meanings of) words.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment