René Descartes (1596-1650) was a French philosopher as well as mathematician (He developed the Cartesian coordinate system you use in geometry class). He is often called the “Father of Modern Philosophy” because his writings set philosophy on a new course which it has (some twists and turns aside) been on ever since.
In 1637 Descartes published the Discourse on Method (it’s full name is: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences ).
In chapter 2 of this work, from which our selections are drawn, Descartes introduces his famous “building metaphor” and lays out the 4 principle rules for the conduct of reason.
Like Fromm, Descartes thinks that reflection on our beliefs is crucial (although he arrives at this conclusion by a rather different route). However, whereas Fromm provides no account of how we are to reflect on our beliefs, Descartes goes to great
lengths to describe such a method of reflection. The question now is whether his method is a good one.
[A] I was then in Germany, attracted thither by the wars in that country, which have not yet been brought to a termination; and as I was returning to the army from the
coronation of the emperor, the setting in of winter arrested me in a locality where, as I found no society to interest me, and was besides fortunately undisturbed by any cares or passions, I remained the whole day in seclusion, with full opportunity to occupy my
attention with my own thoughts. Of these one of the very first that occurred to me was, that there is seldom so much perfection in works composed of many separate parts, upon which different hands had been employed, as in those completed by a single master. Thus it is observable that the buildings which a single architect has planned and executed, are generally more elegant and commodious than those which several have attempted to improve, by making old walls serve for purposes for which they were not originally built.
Thus also, those ancient cities which, from being at first only villages, have become, in course of time, large towns, are usually but ill laid out compared with the regularly constructed towns which a professional architect has freely planned on an open plain; so that although the several buildings of the former may often equal or surpass in beauty those of the latter, yet when one observes their indiscriminate juxtaposition1, there a large one and here a small, and the consequent crookedness and irregularity of the streets, one is disposed to allege that chance rather than any human will guided by reason must have led to such an arrangement. . .
1 their careless positioning/placement
[B] In the same way I thought that the sciences contained in books, composed as they are of the opinions of many different individuals massed together, are farther
removed from truth than the simple inferences which a man of good sense using his natural and unprejudiced judgment draws respecting the matters of his experience. And because we have all to pass through a state of infancy to manhood, and have been of necessity, for a length of time, governed by our desires and preceptors (whose dictates were frequently conflicting, while neither perhaps always counseled us for the best), I farther concluded that it is almost impossible that our judgments can be so correct or solid as they would have been, had our reason been mature from the moment of our birth, and had we always been guided by it alone.
[C] It is true, however, that it is not customary to pull down all the houses of a town with the single design of rebuilding them differently, and thereby rendering the streets more handsome; but it often happens that a private individual takes down his own with the view of erecting it anew, and that people are even sometimes constrained to this when their houses are in danger of falling from age, or when the foundations are insecure. With this before me by way of example, I was persuaded that it would indeed be preposterous for a private individual to think of reforming a state by fundamentally changing it
throughout, and overturning it in order to set it up amended; and the same I thought was true of any similar project for reforming the body of the sciences, or the order of teaching them established in the schools: but as for the opinions which up to that time I had
embraced, I thought that I could not do better than resolve at once to sweep them wholly away, that I might afterwards be in a position to admit either others more correct, or even perhaps the same when they had undergone the scrutiny of reason. I firmly believed that in this way I should much better succeed in the conduct of my life, than if I built only upon old foundations, and leaned upon principles which, in my youth, I had taken upon trust.
. . .
[D] I had become aware, even so early as during my college life, that no opinion, however absurd and incredible, can be imagined, which has not been maintained by some
one of the philosophers; and afterwards in the course of my travels I remarked that all those whose opinions are decidedly repugnant to ours are not in that account barbarians and savages, but on the contrary that many of these nations make an equally good, if not better, use of their reason than we do. I took into account also the very different character which a person brought up from infancy in France or Germany exhibits, from that which, with the same mind originally, this individual would have possessed had he lived always among the Chinese or with savages, and the circumstance that in dress itself the fashion which pleased us ten years ago, and which may again, perhaps, be received into favor before ten years have gone, appears to us at this moment extravagant and ridiculous. I was thus led to infer that the ground of our opinions is far more custom and example than any certain knowledge. And, finally, although such be the ground of our opinions, I remarked that a plurality of suffrages is no guarantee of truth where it is at all of difficult discovery, as in such cases it is much more likely that it will be found by one than by many. I could, however, select from the crowd no one whose opinions seemed worthy of preference, and thus I found myself constrained, as it were, to use my own reason in the conduct of my life.
[E] But like one walking alone and in the dark, I resolved to proceed so slowly and with such circumspection, that if I did not advance far, I would at least guard against falling.
I did not even choose to dismiss summarily any of the opinions that had crept into my belief without having been introduced by reason, but first of all took sufficient time carefully to satisfy myself of the general nature of the task I was setting myself, and ascertain the true method by which to arrive at the knowledge of whatever lay within the compass of my powers. . .
[F] As a multitude of laws often only hampers justice, so that a state is best governed when, with few laws, these are rigidly administered; in like manner . . . I believed that the four following would prove perfectly sufficient for me, provided I took the firm and unwavering resolution never in a single instance to fail in observing them.
The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my
judgment than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.
The second, to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution.
The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence.
And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted.
Schiffman/Boucher Philosophy Lesson 19: Descartes Introduction
Objectives:
As a result of this lesson the students will be able to:
1. Understand any mistakes made on last week’s quizzes.
2. Identify the main claims of the Descartes reading.
3. Answer the 4 Big Questions for Descartes.
Materials:
Descartes reading, graded quizzes, notebooks, board, marker Anticipatory Set:
Explain Descartes’ “building metaphor”.
Procedure:
1. Collect Fromm essays.
2. Review graded key terms quiz #2 and graded Fromm reading quiz.
3. Discuss the AS as a class.
4. Have students work in groups to identify the main claim(s) of each paragraph in the Descartes reading.
5. Re-introduce the 4 Big Questions.
6. Have students answer questions 1, 2, & 3 for Descartes as a group.
7. Review students’ answers to questions 1, 2, & 3.
Homework:
Answer Big Question 1-4 for Descartes.
Schiffman/Boucher Philosophy Lesson 20: Descartes and Fromm
Objectives:
As a result of this lesson the students will be able to:
1. Explain their answers to Big Question 4 to others.
2. Understand the connection between Fromm and Descartes.
Materials:
Descartes reading, ‘Fromm and Descartes’ handout, notebooks, board, marker Anticipatory Set:
List 3 questions you still have about the Descartes’ reading.
Procedure:
1. Ask students to share their questions from the AS and have other students attempt to answer them.
2. Break students up into groups so that they can come to a consensus on Big Question 4. Afterwards, have one “reporter” from each group share their group’s consensus-answer with another group.
3. Distribute the ‘Fromm and Descartes’ handout. Students should discuss the paired quotes on the handout as a group. Once they finish that they may move on to answer the two discussion questions at the end of the handout.
Homework:
Write up your answer to one of the two discussion questions on the ‘Fromm and Descartes’ handout.
Fromm and Descartes
Discuss the relation between the following pairs of quotes. On what points do Fromm and Descartes agree? How do they disagree? In what ways can Descartes be seen as responding to or expanding upon the sorts of considerations raised by Fromm?
Pair 1
Fromm: “From the very start of education original thinking is discouraged and ready-made thoughts are put into people’s heads.”
Descartes: “And because we have all to pass through a state of infancy to manhood, and have been of necessity, for a length of time, governed by our desires and preceptors (whose dictates were frequently conflicting, while neither perhaps always counseled us for the best), I farther concluded that it is almost impossible that our judgments can be so correct or solid as they would have been, had our reason been mature from the moment of our birth, and had we always been guided by it alone.”
Pair 2
Fromm: “Hundreds of scattered and unrelated facts are dumped into the heads of
students; their time and energy are taken up by learning more and more facts so that there is little left for thinking.”
Descartes: “In the same way I thought that the sciences contained in books, composed as they are of the opinions of many different individuals massed together, are farther
removed from truth than the simple inferences which a man of good sense using his natural and unprejudiced judgment draws respecting the matters of his experience.”
Pair 3
Fromm: “All our energy is spent for the purpose of getting what we want, and most people never question the premise of this activity: that they know their true wants. They do not stop to think whether the aims they are pursuing are something they themselves want.”
Descartes: “I could, however, select from the crowd no one whose opinions seemed worthy of preference, and thus I found myself constrained, as it were, to use my own reason in the conduct of my life.”
Pair 4
Fromm: “He would be free to act according to his own will, if he knew what he wanted, thought, and felt. But he does not know. He conforms to anonymous authorities and adopts a self which is not his.”
Descartes: “But as for the opinions which up to that time I had embraced, I thought that I could not do better than resolve at once to sweep them wholly away, that I might
afterwards be in a position to admit either others more correct, or even perhaps the same when they had undergone the scrutiny of reason. I firmly believed that in this way I should much better succeed in the conduct of my life, than if I built only upon old foundations, and leaned upon principles which, in my youth, I had taken upon trust.”
Discussion Questions:
(1) Like Fromm, Descartes thinks that “the ground of our opinions is far more custom and example than any certain knowledge.” To remedy this situation Descartes takes drastic steps. He decides to “sweep [his opinions] wholly away” and start from scratch in his search for truth and knowledge, just as someone might entirely demolish their home so as to build a better one.
Do you think Descartes’ plan is a good one that others should try to follow as well?
Or is his plan bound to fail because of how radical it is?
If it is bound to fail, what would be a more promising way to try to reach the truth?
(2) At the end chapter 2 of the Discourse on Method, Descartes lays out 4 rules that he will follow when trying to figure out what is true and what is not. Translate each of these rules into your own words. Then consider the following questions:
Are these good rules to following? Explain.
Might they be good rules to follow in some spheres of life but not in others?
Are there any other rules that you would add to the list?
Schiffman/Boucher Philosophy Lesson 21: Problems with Descartes’ Picture
Objectives:
As a result of this lesson the students will be able to:
1. Identify several problems with Descartes’ view.
2. Identify the main claims of the argument presented on the ‘Evaluating Descartes’ handout.
3. Answer the Big 4 Questions for this same handout.
Materials:
Descartes reading, ‘Fromm and Descartes’ handout, ‘Evaluating Descartes’
handout, Omelas reading, notebooks, board, marker.
Anticipatory Set: Is the following argument valid? Sound?
i. Martha believes that smoking is wrong.
ii. Sara smokes.
iii. Sara is doing something wrong when she smokes.
(note: the argument is invalid, and therefore unsound) Procedure:
1. Review the AS.
2. Break students up into groups to discuss their answers to the first discussion questions on the back of the ‘Fromm and Descartes’ handout.
3. Distribute the ‘Evaluating Descartes’ handout. Students should read through the handout in groups. Their task is to identify the main claim for parts 1-5.
4. After that students can work in groups to answer the 4 Big Questions for the material presented on the handout.
Homework:
Read “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”.
Answer the following question: Would you walk away from Omelas? Why or why not?