In many ways, the extreme rationalism of Descartes, its traditional alternative and empiricist aspects and the debate between them, constitute the part of the Enlightenment which had the greatest influence in the nineteenth century. Descartes and other Enlightened thinkers were generally confident in their belief that they could use rational principles to solve problems of social interaction, just as they used rationality to understand and control the natural world. This belief led to the Enlightened faith in social progress and a corresponding optimism that the ideals of the Enlightenment would eventually culminate in a utopian society. Nietzsche opposed this Enlightened faith in progress as naive; however, it was here that he had the most trouble eluding the influence of Enlightenment. It was the Enlightenment’s utopianism that remained with Nietzsche even through his most radical critiques.
Often called the father of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes introduced a shift in thinking from the empiricist school of thought in which people believed all knowledge ultimately comes to us through our senses to the rationalist school of thought in which it was believed that human reason was the source for all human knowledge. Through this development in thought, he was also the founder of modern day mathematics and provided the framework for study of the natural sciences. His writings mark the dividing line between the empiricist school of thought and the rationalist school of thought. “Before his time, philosophy had been dominated by the method of Scholasticism, which was entirely based on comparing and contrasting the views of recognized authorities” (Vincent 2003). A great deal of this thought was based on information gleaned from the senses.
Descartes felt the only way to obtain true knowledge was to rely solely upon human reason while ignoring the senses. “His philosophy refused to accept the Aristotelian and Scholastic traditions that had dominated philosophical thought throughout the Medieval period; it attempted to fully integrate philosophy with the ‘new sciences’; and Descartes changed the relationship between philosophy and theology. Such new directions of philosophy made Descartes into a revolutionary figure” (Baillet 1693). For this, he is now known as the father of modern philosophy. Through this development in thought, he was also the founder of modern day mathematics and scientific method. In developing his ideas, Descartes wrote several books, including his “Discourse on Method”, first published in 1637, regarding the nature of existence and knowledge. This book is divided into segments Descartes labels meditations. It is in his third meditation that Descartes reflects upon the nature of God and determines that he does indeed exist.
In developing these ideas, Descartes wrote several books regarding the nature of existence and knowledge, providing us with plenty of material to study and has had tremendous influence on those who have come after him. One of his most often quoted statements is “I think, therefore I am” which was published in his book entitled “Discourse on Method,” which was first published in 1637. By studying the writings that led up to this concept as expressed in “Discourse on Method” and comparing them with further attempts to refine this idea within “Meditations on First Philosophy,” one begins to conclude that Descartes’ account of what is necessary and what is sufficient for knowledge does not make sense.
This simple-sounding statement of “I think, therefore I am” is the result of a discourse in which Descartes calls into question all of the assumptions he’s come to know as a result of the philosophical thought of his day. “I had long before remarked that … it is sometimes necessary to adopt, as if above doubt, opinions which we discern to be highly uncertain” (Descartes, 2001). To seek a higher version of the truth, Descartes felt it was necessary to question every assumption that had even the shadow of a doubt. Through this questioning process, he demonstrates how thought, not observation is really the right foundation for knowledge. “When I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams” (Descartes, 2001). His idea of discovering truths about the world was defined by whether he had a clear and distinct perception of them and that was sufficient for knowledge.
However, the idea that knowledge can be defined by a “clear and distinct perception” is foiled by its own dependence on the senses. Descartes argues his way out of this idea by indicating that in order to fool a mind, a mind must first exist. “But there is I know not what being, who is possessed at once of the highest power and the deepest cunning, who is constantly employing all his ingenuity in deceiving me. Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something” (Descartes, 1989). Regardless of the way in which it’s presented, though, there is a hole in the logic that states thought instead of the senses is the basis for truth while the evidence of correct thought is a clear and distinct sense that what is thought is correct. In his arguments regarding the nature and existence of God, Descartes goes on to say that it does not matter whether we are dreaming or not because whatever our intellect tells us is true is, in fact, true. This directly contradicts what he said earlier regarding dreams being little more than impressions that did not exist and did not necessarily represent what was true.
Therefore, in pursuing a definition of the truth, Descartes came around full circle. From denying the existence of everything that had the shadow of a doubt, including everything known through the senses and seemingly intuitively, he argued his way through the idea that thought completely separated from sense was the necessary basis for knowledge and that the only correct thought was thought that carried with it the sense that it was clear and distinct. Through the meditations included in “Meditations on First Philosophy,” Descartes presents his logical sequence leading to the idea that since God exists, all knowledge must come from him and therefore, whether we are dreaming or awake, our perceptions of our reality must be real. It’s a self-contradicting circle that simply doesn’t make sense when taken in its entirety. Although there are some significant holes in Descartes’ logic that have been pointed out throughout the centuries since he wrote it down, Descartes’ procedure of doubtful questioning, constantly bringing his assumptions under suspicion, helped to change the course of modern philosophy, raising significant questions regarding the nature not only of the universe, but of knowledge and the separation between the body and the mind.
One quote that commonly agreed with in Friedrich Nietzsche’s book On the Genealogy of Morality can be found in the first treatise, second section: “Rather it was ‘the good’ themselves, that is the noble, powerful, higher-ranking and high-minded who felt and ranked themselves and their doings as good, which is to say, as of the first rank, in contrast to everything base, low-minded, common and vulgar” (Nietzsche, 1998: 10). In this statement, Nietzsche points out that the rich and high-ranking individuals of the society took it upon themselves to determine what was good or bad, establishing a separation of the classes that insisted on the common man being bad.
This concept is supported in section four of his first treatise when Nietzsche talks about how he traced the words for ‘good’ to their origins: “I found that they all lead back to the same conceptual transformation – that everywhere the basic concept is ‘noble,’ ‘aristocratic’ in the sense related to the estates, out of which ‘good’ in the sense of ‘noble of soul’ … necessarily develops” (Nietzsche, 1998: 12). I agree that this is the case because society is still very much organized in this way. Something that is bad for a common person to do can be considered good for today’s ‘nobles.’ For example, Paris Hilton is now famous for her ability to flaunt her body, but a young girl with a similar body and behavior in the common realm would be vilified, “for here feeling has arrived at an opposite of that low degree of warmth presupposed by every calculating prudence, every assessment of utility – and not just for once, for an hour of exception, but rather for the long run” (Nietzsche, 1998: 10-11).
Some find it difficult to agree with him, though, on the idea that religion is primarily a reaction of the common against the nobles, as when he introduces his concept of the ‘slave morality’ in which the common man mad Neitzsche, Friedrich, 1998, On the Genealogy of Morality, M.Clark and A. Swensen (trans.) Indianapolis: Hackette “resentment itself turn creative” and thereby gave “birth to values” (Neitzsche, 1998
: 21). Because the common people couldn’t attain the same sorts of ‘goodness’ that could be attained by the nobles, Nietzsche says they had a deep-seated resentment toward the ruling classes that put these limits upon them. Even the religious system of morality, according to Nietzsche, was handed down from the upper classes since this aspect of morality started when the priestly caste and the highest caste were one in the same group. “Here, for example, ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ stand opposite each other for the first time as marks of distinction among the estates” (Nietzsche, 1998: 14). However, by twisting their resentment against the upper classes into a kind of reversal of the morality offered by the upper classes, Nietzsche says the weak created a means by which they could “construe weakness itself as freedom and their particular mode of existence as an accomplishment” (Nietzsche, 1998: 29).
I see religion as being more of a means of imbuing individuals within the common class with a sense of hope for something better as one of the only means by which they might survive through the next day. Because they were so downtrodden by the nobles and had no real means of attaining a higher distinction, the commoners needed something to encourage them to keep working instead of just giving up. With this hope of heavenly rewards, a new system had to be developed that would encourage the type of work ethic the nobles needed out of their workers. Thus, the system of morality represented in the church was a construction of the nobles as a means of getting the most work possible out of the workers and a shared desire by the workers to attain a better future in some form. Where these two concepts merged is where the concepts of Christian morality emerged.
Works Cited
Baillet, A. The Life of Descartes. London: Printed for R. Simpson at the Harp in St. Paul’s Churchyard. (1693).
Descartes, Rene. “Meditations on First Philosophy.” Trans. John Veitch. New York: Prometheus Books. (1989).
Descartes, René. “Discourse on Method.” Vol. XXXIV, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com (2001). Web.
Neitzsche, Friedrich. “On the Genealogy of Morality” M.Clark and A. Swensen (trans.) Indianapolis: Hackett. (1998).
Vincent, Richard. “An Unholy Alliance.” TheoCentric. (2004). Web.