Descartes’ Solitude : Philosopher’s Walk

[Artwork by illustrator fivelove : http://cafe.naver.com/fbdms/7756]

“Cogito, ergo sum”

This proposition, which Descartes derives through his Methodological Skepticism, is not new to us. Someone can perceive that such a proposition is rather a cliché, however, it is not as certain and clear as we think. Anyways, for now, let us put aside problems like circular argument or tautology, and many complicated discourses about logic as well. Let us assume that the “Cogito, ergo sum” is a ‘certain and indubitable’ sentence as Descartes said. What can we ‘construct’ from this ‘foundation’? Is the ‘building’ – which is built up from a ‘firm and abiding superstructure’ – indeed impregnable?

Approximately, Descartes establishes his own world through the induction explained below. “I think, I exist”. From his ‘firm and abiding superstructure’, he induces his thoughts, or memories based on his experience of the past. In the brain – according to Descartes, existence is a ‘thinking thing’. Then, does the thinking thing have its own brain? – of existence, which he is thinking of, contains the concept of ‘Deity’ (I cannot understand why it must be included). However, the unstable Descartes cannot create a ‘Perfect Being’ or the ‘Deity’. Therefore, the Deity exists independently. Furthermore, that Great-good (I also cannot understand why he should be good) Deity is never likely to be able to deceive Descartes. Therefore HE allows the whole world to exist. Ta-da! (Of course, the logic is more delicate than this...)

[Parody of the film “Martix” : Descartes (Google image)]

The math, which was Descartes’ area of expertise, concludes that a proposition is ‘False’ when there is a contrast between the ‘middle proposition’ – a proposition which appeared already in the middle of inducing – and the proposition which we ‘induced from’ the middle proposition. However, even without the support of mathematical proof, Descartes’ argument seems strange almost to the point that it may even seem ridiculous.

In order to suspect one’s thoughts, I think we need to or should be able to believe more than one doubt. That is, in order to make his Methodological Skepticism work, Descartes already had to pre-suppose many rules and promises included in our language system. Trusting the rules of grammar, he proceeds his methodological skepticism, and convinces his thoughts to us with his sentences. Upon his superstructure, he develops his story ‘again’ to the next stage with another faith and unconscious premises.

[Parody of “Genesis”, part of (Google image)]

Descartes has now becomes a total wreck – there is no need for me to criticize in length again – by millions of philosophers, and even normal citizens. Yet, at least from my point of view, the important task is not to simply condemn his achievements but to understand his footprints and chain of thoughts. During his time, people were still living in the Middle Ages. When the King spoke, that statement would become the truth; the words of the Catholic Church were undoubtable; what parents told their children had to be obeyed. Nonetheless, Descartes refused all of the so-called “truths” and designed the structure of his own “truth”. I think the steps that were made by Descartes were indeed the walk taken by a philosopher. 

[Dali, “Profile of time” (Google image)]

Following this note, we can still question ourselves: Are we able to think based upon our own Reason? We cannot just sit here doing nothing and assume that we can just judge Descartes. To censure Descartes, I think we need to risk ourselves as far as he did. As lonely as he was, we might even have to place ourselves into a territory which nobody in our contemporary era would agree with. As harsh as he was, we need to explain our logic and assure that our story is not as bad as his. Even today, we are afraid of expressing outward suspicions towards the beliefs of others because this might exclude ourselves from the field of communication. The belief system that society enforces upon us is still powerful, and even indestructible. Whenever an individual’s thoughts are different from those of others, he/she imposes the possibility of exclusion or elimination upon him/herself. Such circumstances would be too cruel and would leave ourselves in a bleak state of solitude. Therefore, although he committed several logical errors, Descartes is nonetheless a great philosopher even in the present progressive sense.