Rene Descartes: Catholic attitudes toward him

[StMartinTours]

They were no more smiling at the pyre than I am at your sense of humor.

 

[Betterave]

Sense of humor? Or habitual superficial sneering sarcasm?

 

[Geremia]

Read Deely’s Four Ages of Understanding pages 512ff on Descartes. Pages 516-17 have a quote from St. Bonaventure’s Itinerarium Mentis in Deum, whose thought Deely shows influenced that of Descartes.

Cogito ergo sum is a poor representation of Descartes’ thought. Descartes considered his thoughts more real and less prone to doubt than his sensations, and he considered the idea of God as responsible for his certain thoughts. Also, his proof for the reality of a mind-independent “external world” actually rests on the fact that “God is no deceiver.”

Despite all this seeming piety, Descartes is still an idealist; only ideas are real. He commits a philosophical sin in believing in a strict separation between soul (a res cogitans or “thinking thing”) and everything else, including one’s own body, (the res extensae or “extended things”). Catholics believe the soul is the substantial form of the body, that a person is an inextricable union of soul and body. Even when a person dies and his soul “separates from his body,” his soul has a certain relation to his body, as we Catholics believe in the resurrection of the body.

Étienne Gilson is a famous Catholic philosopher and Descartes expert.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a good entry on "Descartes."

The article on “The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist” has some interesting tidbits about Descartes, too, e.g.:

Since Descartes (d. 1650) places the essence of corporeal substance in its actual extension and recognizes only modal accidents metaphysically united to their substance, it is clear, according to his theory, that together with the conversion of the substance of bread and wine, the accidents must also be converted and thereby made to disappear.

 

[Cecilianus]

Descartes ruined much.

The Cogito, the “I think therefore I am,” is insane, and it spawned legion of self-centered anti-sophers after him.

Consider 3 things. We have:

1. The object known.
2. The knower.
3. The act of knowing.

Descartes omitted the first two, and based the existence of things on number 3. What is wrong with that? Firstly, Descartes existed before he made his Cogito. The knower exists before he makes the “critical” proposition (Meaning before one says “I think therefore I am,” they were.) So, being a knower (#2) presupposes the act of knowing (#3), yet Descartes doubted that, and had to “prove” that he existed, and only believed he and other things existed until after he made his cogito, unless the whole thing was just a vain charade, which very well could have been. Also. the world (#1, and God, also #1) existed before the existence of the knower, which is contrary to Descartes “methodic doubt,” which was essentially doubting every single thing he possibly could, until he could arrive at what he considered safe ground, and for some reason, he could not doubt that he was thinking at the present time, which is why he said “I think therefore I am,” and that is how he based his philosophy. That was his bedrock, his own thinking self.

All this bull has spawned the poison of self-centered dark thinking, like solipsism, pragmatism, the “how do we know we are not brains in a vat” ****, and all the rest.

The bedrock of a Catholic’s Philosophy is the Good Lord, God.

The Catholic maintains that the existence of things, the proposition “that things exist,” needs no proof, and is self-evident. Every moment of life testifies that things exist, and we do not need to doubt that fact for any reason, indeed, we can not doubt that fact without passing over into insanity.

This is beyond silly.

“I think, therefore I am” means we cannot doubt our existence, because the fact that we are thinking implies that there must be a thinking being doing the thinking. Therefore, we know we exist.

It does not mean our thinking causes our existence. That “Descartes existed before he made his Cogito” is the point Descartes is trying to prove, not a refutation of him.

You’ll find Descartes’ Cogito in St. Augustine as well. The difference is that Descartes made it the first principle of his philosophy - a methodological decision.

 

[Cecilianus]

The “cogito ergo sum” is open to dispute. (I) know there is thinking happening, a sucession of mental states, but what grounds are there for regarding them as a diachronic unity (an ‘I’). The proposition is in fact circular- cogito meaning “I thinking”

Cogito (I think) is not accurate. It is more accurate to say “Cogitans est” (there is thinking), but an “ergo sum”, does not logically follow from this.

In fact, the deconstruction of the “I” is at the heart of Christian morality- “Love others as yourself”. It breaks down the idea of self.

This is my critique of the famous Cogito.

I’ve never seen “thinking” divorced from a subject. We don’t experience pure thinking without experiencing a diachronic unity behind the thoughts - the transcendental apperception.

 

[levinas12]

I’ve never seen “thinking” divorced from a subject. We don’t experience pure thinking without experiencing a diachronic unity behind the thoughts - the transcendental apperception.

I agree in a way … but citing the transcendental apperception of Kant might get you in a little hot water … Kant blocked any direct cognition of the real self by putting an abyss between phenomenon and noumenon, between appearance and being … all that we are directly know is phenomenal, i.e., “appearances” … we don’t have access to beings in themselves … so Kant represents the end of metaphysics …

 

[Thomas0]

“I think therefore I am, I think.” The Moody Blues, In The Beginning

Is it OK to post a link to an interesting related article? If not let me know and I will delete:

economist.com/node/8407314?story_id=E1_RQDSPTQ

Humans will eventually build, or build with the help of other machines, conscious self-aware machines (or programs, if you prefer.) Probably not all that far out in the future, either.

It’s going to become interesting…

 

[greylorn]

This is beyond silly.

“I think, therefore I am” means we cannot doubt our existence, because the fact that we are thinking implies that there must be a thinking being doing the thinking. Therefore, we know we exist.

It does not mean our thinking causes our existence. That “Descartes existed before he made his Cogito” is the point Descartes is trying to prove, not a refutation of him.

You’ll find Descartes’ Cogito in St. Augustine as well. The difference is that Descartes made it the first principle of his philosophy - a methodological decision.

Well put. It is a pleasure to read someone who, before espousing his opinions on Descartes’ philosophy, actually read it first.

 

[greylorn]

“I think therefore I am, I think.” The Moody Blues, In The Beginning

Is it OK to post a link to an interesting related article? If not let me know and I will delete:

economist.com/node/8407314?story_id=E1_RQDSPTQ

Humans will eventually build, or build with the help of other machines, conscious self-aware machines (or programs, if you prefer.) Probably not all that far out in the future, either.

It’s going to become interesting…

It would be a nice courtesy to describe the general point of the link.

Humans will not build the machine you anticipate in the manner you imagine it to work. Machines cannot reverse entropy on their own, that is, without an external source of power which (I propose) is an essential characteristic of any creatively thinking entity (e.g. God). However, there are machines which provide a suitable interface to the soul. Moments of rare activity on the part of soul give the appearance of consciousness to the machine— the biological human body.

An old novel, The Soul of Anna Klane, proposed a credible scenario in which an electronic and electro-mechanical machine was actually interfaced to a soul, thereby manifesting consciousness. It’s an intense story, but you might appreciate the physics involved. Still available on Amazon and such.

 

[greylorn]

I’ve never seen “thinking” divorced from a subject. We don’t experience pure thinking without experiencing a diachronic unity behind the thoughts - the transcendental apperception.

If a thought occurred which was divorced from a subject, there would be no way to convey the thought to you. How could you “see” it?

I propose that this would be the case even if the thought occurred within your own mind, on a subject you did not understand, and was a valid, correct, applicable thought. For example, suppose that a brilliant insight regarding the relativistic effect of gravitational lensing by dark matter came into your mind, and you had never mastered basic physics. How would you recognize the thought? Where would you put the thought?

Ultimately, until we understand the nature and mechanisms of thought, anyone making statements about thought in the context of philosophical certainty is flirting with long-term pretentiousness.

 

[greylorn]

I agree in a way … but citing the transcendental apperception of Kant might get you in a little hot water … Kant blocked any direct cognition of the real self by putting an abyss between phenomenon and noumenon, between appearance and being … all that we are directly know is phenomenal, i.e., “appearances” … we don’t have access to beings in themselves … so Kant represents the end of metaphysics …

Does that mean that I am no longer allowed to pursue metaphysical questions, or that the classical pursuit vector dead-ended in a philosophical conundrum? Or, does it mean something new and different?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I read some Descartes in college, and have recently resolved to re-read him. I recall that some Catholics tend to look unfavorably upon him and that he was even accused of atheism in his time (though his Meditations on First Philosophy seek to prove the existence of God). Can someone enlighten me on common attitudes towards Descartes’ philosophy among Catholics?

I have always felt that people have brutally misinterpreted Descartes, and in doing so have failed to see his genius. Even if he is the father of flawed ideas, his statement “I think therefore I am” needs to be absolutely respected for what it truly represents. People interpret this statement in an ontological fashion falling to realise that the context is epistemological. Even if I am mistaken about my particular interpretation, there is no denying its power as an epistemological argument. It, with out doubt, helps to destroy scientism (the idea that we can only know something through science). I think therefore I am is evidently an epistemological argument, as in, it is about what we can know, rather than what the nature of the thing is that is knowing. It appears, at least to me, that the argument was developed in light of universal scepticism, and therefore for should be treated in that context. Descartes deals with the problem of knowledge. Therefore the consequences of such an argument is not supposed to be viewed in an ontological fashion. In the context of knowledge, those who attempt to express universal doubt are completely destroyed by the statement “I think therefore I am” . Not only does his statement show that you cannot possibly doubt everything, but also it demonstrates to us that the act of reality is fundamentally rational, and thus it is possible to “know” some things with absolute certainty through rational metaphysical enquiry. Whether we as Catholics like it or not, Descartes, through his famous argument, does his part to preserve metaphysics; not destroy it. That people have taking his philosophy and have used it to support fallacious views, does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of Descartes.

I fail to understand the negative feelings he has got from Catholic philosophers. Its actually quite bizarre to me; although I must point out that I am not in support of all his ideas.

I can however understand the criticism of angelism, since Descartes appears to think that the mind works irrespective of the brain. In other words, you are already a whole person before the fact that you have a physical body. Whereas Aquinas states that your conscious nature as a person is a product of both the physical and the non-physical. In other-words a whole person includes both soul and body.

 

[levinas12]

… his statement “I think therefore I am” needs to be absolutely respected for what it truly represents. People interpret this statement in an ontological fashion falling to realise that the context is epistemological.

For some critics, the problem with “I think, therefore I am” are the two “I”'s. Is the “I” of the “I think” the same “I” as the “I” in the “I am”. The question of self-identity is not epistemological but ontological.

Another way of putting this: is the speaking subject (the “I” of the “I think”) the same as the subject spoken about (the “I” of the “I am”)?

 

[Cecilianus]

If a thought occurred which was divorced from a subject, there would be no way to convey the thought to you. How could you “see” it?

I propose that this would be the case even if the thought occurred within your own mind, on a subject you did not understand, and was a valid, correct, applicable thought. For example, suppose that a brilliant insight regarding the relativistic effect of gravitational lensing by dark matter came into your mind, and you had never mastered basic physics. How would you recognize the thought? Where would you put the thought?

Ultimately, until we understand the nature and mechanisms of thought, anyone making statements about thought in the context of philosophical certainty is flirting with long-term pretentiousness.

I like your example, Greylorn. I’m a grad student in theoretical astrophysics.

And I agree with the philosophical point you made. What would a thought divorced from a subject even be? We could have statements or facts, but we wouldn’t call them “thoughts” - if only as a matter of semantics.

 

[Jordanqwef]

This is beyond silly.

“I think, therefore I am” means we cannot doubt our existence, because the fact that we are thinking implies that there must be a thinking being doing the thinking. Therefore, we know we exist.

It does not mean our thinking causes our existence. That “Descartes existed before he made his Cogito” is the point Descartes is trying to prove, not a refutation of him.

You’ll find Descartes’ Cogito in St. Augustine as well. The difference is that Descartes made it the first principle of his philosophy - a methodological decision.

Yes it means that, but, he uses it at his starting principle of his philosophy, which, I disagree with. I believe that sense knowledge is the first principle of all knowledge, not an intellectual act of thinking. Sense knowledge bears testimony to a sensing creature, which precedes the act of thinking, as Descartes had it. That I sense is beyond the need for proof, and that I exist sensing things needs no proof, because it is self-evident. Since all of our knowledge comes by way of the senses, leaves the Cartesian critical question superfluous and illogical and absurd. Why?

Because in order to doubt the validity of any one sensation or any class of sensations in a conceptualization, we would have to judge the sensation, or conceptualization if you want, - test it- by comparing it to other sensations known to be valid, formed as concepts perhaps. But what about thinking?

Sense data delivers the goods of existence to the intellect, and the intellect, can do nothing but accept the existence delivered, the existence, I say. This preceding sentence does not touch upon phantoms, or other abberations.

I once read a philosophy book used in the 18th Century for Catholic seminary students, and under consciousness, it defined it as the living light and rule of existence, or something to that effect. The sense data delivers to the intellect, at all waking moments, that things exist, and since things exist, there must be receiver of that sense data, and active receptor of the sense data, which belongs to the man of whose senses he would sense himself, no doubt.

The critique is an absurdity.

Now, if there is any Catholic defense of Descartes, specifically, in the 19th or earlier 20th centuries, I would like to know about it.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Well, that certainly justifies his painful, brutal termination by being burnt at the stake.

I’m late for the response, but---------

I’m not condoning what the civil authorities (in concordance with the Church) did. I’m simply replying to the centuries-old stereotype that Bruno was a proto-Galileo that was executed for teaching Heliocentrism.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

No it doesn’t, but it disproves the old canard, repeated by Insight, about the church “frowning upon” science.

 

[Cecilianus]

Yes it means that, but, he uses it at his starting principle of his philosophy, which, I disagree with. I believe that sense knowledge is the first principle of all knowledge, not an intellectual act of thinking. Sense knowledge bears testimony to a sensing creature, which precedes the act of thinking, as Descartes had it. That I sense is beyond the need for proof, and that I exist sensing things needs no proof, because it is self-evident. Since all of our knowledge comes by way of the senses, leaves the Cartesian critical question superfluous and illogical and absurd. Why?

Because in order to doubt the validity of any one sensation or any class of sensations in a conceptualization, we would have to judge the sensation, or conceptualization if you want, - test it- by comparing it to other sensations known to be valid, formed as concepts perhaps. But what about thinking?

Sense data delivers the goods of existence to the intellect, and the intellect, can do nothing but accept the existence delivered, the existence, I say. This preceding sentence does not touch upon phantoms, or other abberations.

I once read a philosophy book used in the 18th Century for Catholic seminary students, and under consciousness, it defined it as the living light and rule of existence, or something to that effect. The sense data delivers to the intellect, at all waking moments, that things exist, and since things exist, there must be receiver of that sense data, and active receptor of the sense data, which belongs to the man of whose senses he would sense himself, no doubt.

The critique is an absurdity.

Now, if there is any Catholic defense of Descartes, specifically, in the 19th or earlier 20th centuries, I would like to know about it.

That’s a methodological choice on Descartes’ part, not necessarily something you can “agree” or “disagree” with. The relevant question is, how useful is it? Can you derive all philosophy from this first principle? Since almost everyone agrees that Descartes’ arguments for God and his argument for the reliability of the senses are fallacious, then I would say that in Descartes’ formulation it’s not the most useful place to start.

My Catholic philosophy professor accused Descartes of blasphemy for daring to assert that he could know himself without external sense-objects (only the Trinity does that, he said) and for his assertion that he existed, following the Biblical passage where God calls Himself “I AM”. But I don’t think that asserting our existence is blasphemous. To deny it would be to say that we don’t exist, which is absurd. We still exist even though our existence “participates” in God, whatever THAT means.

Also, we don’t need to contemplate things outside of us to know ourselves. Everybody DOES know things outside of us, but we can argue for our existence without considering them.

Another professor said his argument was logically invalid because it only had one premise. That’s because it’s not a syllogism, but a different type of valid argument form in Aristotelian logic in which one of the notes of the predicate is isolated out and asserted (from “There is a thinking being” one draws out “There is a being”). I can’t find the name of this argument type because I can’t find my copy of Sr. Miriam Joseph’s The Trivium right now, but my professor should have known it. He had an axe to grind, however.

Most critiques of Descartes are of his rationalism, his treatment of the mind-body problem, his dubious arguments for the existence of God, the utility of his method, and other problems in his philosophy, but the actual soundness of the cogito is pretty unassailable.

 

[levinas12]

Does that mean that I am no longer allowed to pursue metaphysical questions, or that the classical pursuit vector dead-ended in a philosophical conundrum? Or, does it mean something new and different?

I gave the “classical” Thomist response to Kant in my posting. If ontology is the science of the structure of being in itself and beings in themselves, then Kant has erected a serious obstacle. In this sense, Kant is an elaboration on Hume.

Some have argued that there was still a metaphysical “afterglow” to Kant. Because his a priori space and time, and his a apriori schematized categories, were posited as “universal” and unchanging, independent of history and culture.

Maybe Kant is the beginning of something new and different. Certainly, Heidegger had great reverence for Kant, in particular the a priori. The everyday “world”, language, the “sendings” of Sein (crossed out), become the “historical” a priori for Heidegger. The universal and unchanging character of the a priori drops out. But at least there is still a sense of a time-related “transcendental” dimension that structures the empirical and the ontic.

Maybe Heidegger too is basking in a metaphysical “twilight”.

I just love all this philosophical jargon.

 

[Weisse_Moewe]

Dear friends,

the ‘I’ remains as a vessel or witness (awareness), but is occupied with the power and consciousness of Christ: Thy will be - instead of of the ‘I think therefore I AM’. The intellect can never identify and understand the essence of God, the I AM reveals Himsef to the heart only, as He is LOVE and the intelligent, creative power of this universe but NOT comparable to our little, limited, human intellect. The power of our intellect doesn’t make us equal to God, this is what the fallen angel tries to convince us of: if you are able to distinguish between good and bad you’ll be like God! This knowledge belongs to dialectics and caused the whole mess for us, we’re in now! Or do you feel our so-called technologies and sciences offer the key to happiness and harmony in the world? Undoubtedly they were necessary at some stage and to some extent, otherwise we would still be sitting in caves, but the intellect is not the final and most glorious achievement of evolution. Maybe now it’s the time to recognize its limits and step out of its false self-glorification into a new dimension? Not I AM but Thou Art, Lord, therefore I exist in and through your Wisdom and Love! AMEN!

Weiße Moewe