1. Descartes has a method that begins by 'doubting everything'. Which among these do you think he has in mind? Aristotle, The Bible and Aquinas? The logical arguments of a Socrates defining justice?
Descartes’ philosophy of “doubting everything” runs contrary to the notion of “received wisdom” that past thinkers we’ve studied like Augustine pioneered. I think that, when Descartes encourages his audience to doubt everything, he is telling them to doubt the “received wisdom”—namely, the Bible—that authors like Augustine and Aquinas use to corroborate their claims. However, many of his claims seem to align with Socrates’ in the Republic—Plato argues that philosophy is the study of the forms, and Descartes’ definition of philosophy as “the study of wisdom” (Descartes 179), with wisdom defined as “a perfect knowledge of all things that mankind is capable of knowing” (179). The Socratic and Cartesian definitions of philosophy are thus aligned very closely. Another parallel between the two thinkers is Descartes’ idea that “living without philosophizing is exactly like having one’s eyes closed without ever trying to open them” (180); this idea harkens back to Plato’s cave, as the one person who leaves the cave (who represents the philosopher king) finally sees the truth and is able to educate those who are still stuck in the cave about what they’ve seen. Although several of Descartes’ ideas appear to build off of Plato’s, Descartes seems to emphasize the practical wisdom and scientific observation that are characteristic of Aristotelian philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment