Discourse on Method

Book is great for those who seek knowledge, this book will change the was you perceive things if you understand it.

Rene Descartes is often considered the founding father of modern philosophy. A true Renaissance man, he studied Scholastic philosophy and physics as a student, spent time as a volunteer soldier and traveler throughout Europe, studied mathematics, appreciated the arts, and became a noted correspondent with royals and intellectual figures throughout the continent. He died in Sweden while on assignment as tutor to the Queen, Christiana. Descartes 'Discourse on Method' is a fascinating text, combining the newly-invented form of essay (Descartes was familiar with the Essays of Montaigne) with the same kind of autobiographical impulse that underpins Augustine's Confessions. Descartes writes about his own form of mystical experience, seeing this as almost a kind of revelation that all past knowledge would be superseded, and all problems would eventually be solved by human intellect. In the Discourse, Descartes formulates logical principles based on reason (which makes it somewhat ironic that this came to him almost as a revelation). Descartes had some appreciation for thinkers such as Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes, but he thought that Bacon depended too much upon empirical data, and with Hobbes he disagreed on what would be the criteria for ascertaining certainty. Descartes was a mathematician at heart, and perhaps had a carry-over of Pythagorean mystical attachment to mathematics, for his sense of reason led him to impute an absolute quality to mathematics; this has major implications for metaphysics and epistemology. Descartes method was a continuation in many ways of the ideas of Plato, Aristotle and the medieval thinkers, for they all tended toward thinking in absolute, universal terms in some degree. Descartes in his first section discounts much of Scholasticism, stating that the only real absolutes are theology and mathematics; because theology is based upon revelation, it is therefore beyond reason, and thus, mathematics becomes the only rational truth. Descartes develops this idea further with rules of method, which include ideas of intuition, analysis and deduction. He uses some of his method to come up with his greatest proposition: Cogito ergo sum - - I think, therefore I am 'The Cogito is a first principle from which Descartes will now deduce all that follows.' This permits Descartes to deal both with rational elements and empirical data. The other writings included here give good insight into the ways in which this method influenced Descartes. His correspondence was one of the things for which he was most famous during his lifetime, and Descartes carried on extensive correspondence with people throughout Europe helping educate and elucidate through his writing. This is an important text; the 'Discourse on Method' is one that I read the summer before I went to college, and makes a good study for those who wish to see the personal element in the development of philosophy.

Morpheus: Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real?  What if you were unable to wake from that dream, Neo? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? René Descartes (1596-1650) chose the "red" pill.  He chose to question the comfortable assumptions of his time.  The work of Copernicus and Galileo had exposed flaws that Descartes sought to resolve.  His scientific attitude, his style of thinking, his method set the trend for the future. As Herr Doktor Hans Küng wrote in his landmark text, _Does God Exist?_, _There is no one who personifies the modern ideal of absolute mathematical-philosophical certainty better than the brilliant inaugurator of analytical geometry and modern philosophy._  No one today thinks seriously of science as other than an objective endeavor.  Star Trek's Mr. Spock is admired.Why bother reading Descartes?  It is not a quick read.  The language is difficult and the thought processes are not all clear and distinct.  The reason I am motivated to read Descartes is because I feel that to accept the prevailing scientism without questioning its premise is to deny the basic premise of Descartes.  I have an interest in spiritual matters, and that often leads me to question conceptual certainty.  To ignore Descartes is to take the "blue" pill.  In the excellent introduction to this version, Dr Tom Sorell writes, _This intellectual individualism, and the idea that the typical scientific attitude is one of questioning great deal and asserting only what one can be certain of, are now utterly absorbed in modern thinking about the conduct of enquiry in general. In this respect Descartes is one of the founders of modern thought, not just the father of modern philosophy._Descartes believed that when the methods  and its applications were considered together, it would be possible to see in them the outlines of a comprehensive science capable of answering any factual question that the mind could propose.  Many people today still believe this.  The success of scientific discovery and technology, indeed progress, itself, has benefited from this attitude.  Equations relate known to unknown elements.  Difficulties are divided under examination into as many parts as possible with clear relations to one another.  Who questions this approach?  It is the basis of systems theory, of categorizing our world, making it manageable, controlled, predictable.  Subject and object are distinct.Descartes' confidence in his new method can be seen as he applies it to metaphysics, namely the existence of a deity.  Dr Sorell identifies the conclusion that a non-deceiving God exists as _perhaps the most important in the Meditations.  Once it is established it guarantees the truth of 'I am thinking, therefore I am' which otherwise has only subjective certainty_  Descartes' conclusion about God, which he confirms by another proof in Meditation Five, guarantees the reality of precisely those simple things (i.e. sh

"A Discourse on Method: Meditations and Principles" is more than a book, it is a challenging and rewarding mental experience. It is a tough read but well worth it just to read "I think, therefore I am" in its proper context (the simple statement that Descartes considers his first principle of philosophy). The book is divided into three parts. In "A Discourse on Method," Descartes lays out his first principle of philosophy, and his plan for rejecting false assertions and deriving true principles. The "Meditations on the First Principle" is the wide ranging essay where "I think, therefore I am" is expanded to include all of its implications. These implications are wide ranging, from the existence of God, to the existence of our bodies, other physical objects, various scientific principles, and finally, whatever we are able to know as truth. Here is where the book poses its greatest challenge. At this point I was only reading 2-4 pages at a time. Then when I finished this part, I went back and reread a bulk of it to fully grasp the key points of the "Meditations." The third part, "The Principles of Philosophy," wouldn't have been so difficult if my brain hadn't been taxed as it was by the "Meditations." But the Principles are well organized and clearer, making the book more satisfying to read again.Overall, this book is a treasure as an intense mental revelation. It brings together Descartes' best writing for the general reader, if the reader is up to the challenge.

Can anything be known to be certain? This is a more difficult question than most people might recognize. Rene Descartes says yes and presents us with one of the most elegant thought experiments in the history of philosophy. We begin by calling into doubt all claims of "knowledge"; believing nothing that cannot be affirmed with absolute certainty: Imagine now that an all-powerful, all-knowing being might exist external to that which we can experience with our senses, i.e., external to the material world (recall that we can neither know this nor know otherwise). Imagine further that this extra-material entity may be a devious trickster, messing with my mind, perhaps to amuse a twisted sense of humor. Because the possible trickster would exist external to the access of scientific scrutiny, I could, in my state of absolute skepticism, never know whether this sadistic consciousness is at work, not only in the material world, not only in my conscious perception of the material world, but in fact in the perceptions of all other conscious beings as well (if they actually exist, that is). Thus all scientific proofs might be mere illusion and there could be no means of determining this. In other words, if all material objects and all subjects of thought are inherently uncertain, and this is indeed a logical conclusion at this point in our consideration, what then could be known with certainty? Is then the only absolute certainty this universal and impenetrable uncertainty? Could it ever be truly known that anything exists apart from the possibility of the trickster? Only one thing: that [without regard to whether or not it is being deceived] the mind of the thinker must exist, for otherwise there is not even the illusion that our consideration is happening. Thus the only thing that I may know beyond any doubt is that my mind does exist. Cogito ergo sum, i.e., "I think, therefore I am." This singular certainty is not without further implications. For while we have established that consciousness (i.e., mind) is more certain to exist than is matter, we don't know why this should be true. Or do we? Descartes says that there is a reason we must reach this conclusion and presents his ontological argument for the existence of a perfect and beneficent Mind beyond material constraints and uncertainty (that mind being God). Whether or not Descartes believed he had "proved" the existence of God is not a very interesting point (apparently he thought so). As Pascal pointed out, such proof -- or disproof -- is not possible within the inherent limits of human investigations (Pascal found nature and reason to powerfully infer God's existence in a probabilistic sense, while "scientific" proofs must be uncertain, uncertainty being the nature of corporeal existence). What Descartes did "prove" is that the idea of an extra-cosmic mind is a rational conclusion (and is rational to a greater extent than any phenomenological observation that we might assume to be "true"). Some cl