Don’t Damn Me!

I won’t lie and pretend i’ve read all his works, or even any of his works in full, i’ve basically had a look around on the internet and read a lot of snippets, and what bits i could find for free, as well as the basic concepts of his thinking. Seeing as this site is basically for me to meander in my own mind express it in written form, i doubt it matters much.

Upon reading on the thinking behind Descartes’ philosophy, i can’t help but find inconsistencies. The same inconsistencies i see in any argument that claims open-mindedness, free-thinking and the like.

• Descartes

Descartes attempted to find truth, by doubting everything around him, inside of him, and anywhere else that might be lurking in the shadows.

He was coming from the mindset that what he’d believed in growing up, turned out to be a bunch of crap, and so, it stood to reason that even the things he didn’t see as being crap, could well be, and the fact he believed in them didn’t matter one iota, in the grand scheme of things. It didn’t change fact.

He doubted all things. In fact, he forced himself to doubt all things, no matter how reasonable they seemed to him. Wishing to find point “zero”. Somewhere he could start all over again from. Without preconceived ideas, beliefs and leanings.

His first step was to doubt absolutely everything. What he saw, what he heard, what he felt, what he thought even. To the point where absolutley nothing was real.

Once in that mindset, he needed to find a constant. His constant was the words we all know him through, today. “I think, therefore I am.”

• I think, therefore I am.

Descartes’ reasonsing behind this starting piont, or point zero, was, a non-cognitive being cannot imagine cognivity. The thoughts can be wrong, the conclusions wrong, and they can even be deceived, but the very fact they exist at all means that it’s real at least on one level.

I’d have to go along with that, i certainly can’t argue against it.

• The existence of God.

Working from his point zero, where the only thing that was real was his own cognivity, Descartes went on to claim the following:

1. Mankind has the imagination of God in their mind.

2. This imagination of God, is one of a perfect being, infinite, infallible.

3. Mankind is both finite and fallible, and as such cannot imagine things beyond that scope. So therefore a God must exist, which is infinite and infallible, in order to place those concepts into our imaginations.

4. Furthermore because this God is perfect, it must be incapable of deceipt. And as such, the thoughts he placed within mankind must be reliable.

Hmmm. Excuse me? Why?

All Descartes has done is, define himself some new preconceived ideas. Which in all honesty, aren’t that far removed from the old ones.

• Descartes’ reasoning.

As part of his philosophy, Descartes believed that even our sense of reality couldn’t be relied upon, because our senses could be open to deceipt. He reasoned that if demons were feeding us thoughts, feeling, sights, sounds, touch, etc, then anything we perceive could well just be what the demons want us to perceive.

So, if we see a tree, it doesn’t mean the tree is real. The “demon” could have just placed that image in our minds, because it wanted us to see a tree. Of course because we were able to conceive a tree at all, and decide if it was there or not, meant that cognitive thought was real. Thus giving him his zero point.

But through the existence of a perfect God, which he then deduces to be incapable of deceipt, and further uses to deduce that any thoughts he places in our minds must be reliable, he totally moves away from all sense of doubt.

It’s a bit of a leap, to go from believing nothing, to suddenly believing all of these things.

Assuming that mankind cannot think of anything that does not exist is a pretty big wall. There’s no reason for thinking this, and the only reason Descartes does think of it, is to give himself a neater answer. An answer that he likes.

He then uses this answer to justify the existence of a God. Again, to appease himself.

But not only that, he further states that this God must be good. Perfect. So incapable of deceipt, trustworthy and only capable of good things.

Again, why? Just because he imagines that? I can imagine God being a 34 year old bricklayer from London, England, capable of flying, leaping tall buildings and conjuring up low-fat chocolate upon command. Does that mean my God exists too?

I’m not even going to argue that my God doesn’t exist, but i’m sure as hell not going to assume it does, just because i thought of it, and it’s bigger than me, so therefore the thougth must have been placed there by a being that meets those standards.

In my opinion, Descartes started out with a decent concept, the idea of cleansing the mind, clearing all stigma and doctrine, then trying to find truths that stood the test.

But along the way, he fell back on what was him. He fell back on the things he wanted, needed and desired. Sure, he parcelled it up in neat little arguments, justifying his thinking. Even though his thinking had earlier been thought of as untrustworthy, because his thinking could be affected by the “demon”.

It seems that he was uncomfortable with this idea, he needed a get out clause. The easiest way to get out, was to create a God, an infinitely perfect being, one which could be trusted. A comfort blanket. If this God existed, and was perfect and good, then to think of it would be good too. Thus making his own thoughts trustworthy, because it was able to think of such good things.

This isn’t open-mindedly seeking the truth. This was fulfilling self. Finding answers that bolster self and make the world a little more reliable again.

True open-mindedness wouldn’t have assumed anything, based upon anything else. A true open mind would have no starting point at all. Because even the idea of a constant is pre-conceieved. Even the idea that one thing is true, and therefore not untrue, is a pre-conceived idea.

What’s to say that although we’re capable of cognitive thought, and are in fact real, we aren’t unreal too? Or that we’re only real at certain moments, ie. the moments we have thoughts. Or even that we’re programmed, to think what we think, and aren’t real at all?

A computer will compute data when commanded to, thinking of the answers, based upon the data it already knows or has programmed into it. What’s to say we’re any different? What’s to say that cognivity is real itself?

There’s so many holes in Descartes’ reasoning, from an open-minded/zero point, angle.

He merely throws off the shackles of old, then puts them back on again under his own terms & conditions.

I really wish i could put my points across better, i’m struggling to translate my thinking into written word on this subject. I’m not a philosopher, and i’ve never even really read much philosophy, as a lot of it goes over my head. Which i’m sure is pretty apparent in this post!

The real crux of my argument is this:

There’s no such thing as open-mindedness. We have too many thoughts which are sub-conscious, and too far below the radar. We can’t just change those thoughts, willinilly, because most of them we aren’t even aware of. Like Descartes wasn’t aware of his own preconceptions, which made up for a huge part of his philosophy, even though he claimed it was from a point zero, where he threw off all preconceptions.