did descartes develop his dualism beliefs around the
a + bi
mathmatical equation?
i thougt it could be his idea that we can suspend the belief of anything we think of. therefore thinking is a seperate function people have.
its quite obvious that our thinking is dependent on our body(as our body is what allows us to process information)
I may be way off base(i only read the 1st few paragraphs in descartes meditations)
the idea of the soul had been around for quite a while
Descartes was just trying to make a place for it.
the idea of the soul is quite different than the idea of mind, the mind is dependent on a physical organ , the soul is a fairytail.
From all I know of Descartes, I don’t think so. The preface to the edition of Discourse on Method talked about the fact that while Descartes made important mathematical contributions, he did not actually invent the cartesian coordinate system. In fact http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-works/ talks about whether Descartes invented the coordinate system or not. He made strides in analytic geometry, but didn’t develop the familiar x-y plane. So that means he probably didn’t view the real part of numbers on the x-axis, the imaginary part on the y. And since he didn’t devlop the complex coordinates, I don’t think they had a major impact on his thought.
Descartes did give the name “imaginary” to numbers involving negative square roots, but he meant that as a derogatory term. (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Complex_number)That’s probably not the greatest source, but someone can check a history of math book if they really want to.
I don’t know. I just remembered reading that it’s a myth that Descartes invented cartesian coordinates. And from there, I read a little further and found he viewed imaginary numbers with scorn. So I don’t think so. It’s a highly intriguing idea though.
whatever you say
a+bi is not a mathematical equation, but the canonical form of a complex number, or, as Descartes dubbed it, an “imaginary number”. As theonefroberg pointed out though, Descartes used the term pejoratively. By the standards of 17th century philosophers and mathematicians, such numbers were thought not to exist. In his La Geometrie, Descartes lays down the theory for cartesian system of coordinates and the representation of real numbers on his plane, through coordinate. Descartes is the father of analytical geometry and other countless metaphysical vices.
His dualism, methinks, sprouts from a latent religiosity, found in the attempt to mould an early scholastic pun otherwise known as the ontological argument, in order to fit his philosophy.
Mucius is right, one always has to bear in mind that Descartes was trying to find a proof for the existence of God and ultimately all his work was subservient to that aim.
Wow I wish I had a “fairytail†handy for the midges.
Any ways onwards and upwards.
Surely if you believe that mind is dependent on or, dare I say it, (ah go on do!) emergent from “the brain†then you have the evidence par excellence of the “soul/mindâ€.
Consider the “soul†simply as software or a programme implemented on a computer which is the brain. Does this not mean that the same programme could be implemented on other systems of equal capacity?
Further that it could be “ported†and even implemented on silicon based systems eg a computer or another carbon based brain or some other “machine†based on pure energy or what ever. I think the whole idea of the mind being based on the brain paves the way for a potential reductionist backing for “the soul"
Krossie
i always thought that the idea of the soul for Plato was analagous to the modern idea of the mind.
non-physical controlling element of the body. psychology showed us that the mind is dependent on a physical organ (head trauma can effect motor/language/reasoning skills)
Actually no. In later works Plato operates a distinction within the soul that is different from that in Phaidon in that it tries to be more comprehensive and personalised. In Phaedrus, the psyche is tripartite and the household metaphor is that of a charioteer and two horses; the charioteer being, naturally, reason, holding in reins on one side the spirited part of the soul and on the other the lustful, prodigal, desirous part. In The Republic every “part” of the soul is associated with one of the three classes in platonist utopian society: the highest part (rational) embodies the Philosopher King, the middle spirited part belongs to the Guardians, while the lower appetitive part characterises the Hoi polloi. The lower part is, obviously, the source of all evil and needs to be governed.
Plato’s distinction, apart from being the first in Western philosophy, has the merit of introducing a hygenic principle of separation and a rather attractive concept of immortality. Descartes himself walks on the religious path, convinced that apparent reality is bogus. He sagaciously auditorially presents us with a most important argument, the wax one, based on the protean qualities of wax when under heat and pressure. Wax argument indeed.
I think Descartes should be taught in schools to children of 14-15 years. The basis of analytical cartesian geometry are being laid down at that age, and a supplement of philosophical theory is always a benefit. Descartes has the advantage of not being exceedingly difficult to understand and his chronological situation at the so-called inceptive modern tradition makes him appear not too vetust or outdated to early adolescentines. Plus that, if you get a firm grip on dualist theories from a tender age, the impact of witnessing them thrashed later on is presumably more intense.
i only read Plato’s early works
Except that teaching Descartes to anybody at any time is a futile gesture. I very much wish I had never wasted my time reading him - oh, what we do in the name of philosophy.
Please, you don’t give us teens enough credit.
Actually, as a teenager, I disagree. I believe Descartes would be an excellent topic to cover for freshman in high school for two reasons.
- High schoolers are typically not the most questioning types.
High schoolers tend to have rather simplistic views of the world. They tend to be wrapped up in their own, egocentric worlds, focused merely on who’s dating who and the next football game. I think this is largely due to the fact that we live in a sort of “make-believe” world. High school work is really meaningless and unimportant. We don’t have any real use for adults. The adults at our schools are mainly concerned with keeping us on campus and not fighting with each other. We have no real drive, or motivating force. Thus, we create our own shallow and superficial social hierarchy to make competition and make drama in our lives, and many become unable to see that it’s merely a construction. Descartes claimed to challenge everything, to question everything, to doubt everything. Exposing kids to this type of thinking might make some of them actually start questioning their environment and maybe demand more from the adults who tend them. I got a lot of my info from
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
- Descartes laid down a relatively scientific way of looking at the world; this might help demystify science for some people.
American kids are terrible at science by the time they reach high school. Much of Cartesian thought helped lay the foundations of science. While Descartes did not focus on the empiricism inherent in scientific inquiry, he does make a note in his Discourse on Method that the further he proceeded, the more necessary experiments were. Neverthless, Descartes was an important early scientist and his thinking definitely shaped the couse of scientific developments to come. I think exposure to his early methods of doubt and verification might help students understand just what exactly scientists are trying to do and shed light on how scientists do the things they do. Descartes was chasing answers to big questions, and often using science as his aid. Reading Descartes might help students see science as inquiry and asking grand questions, not just throwing chemicals into test tubes according to cook-book like procedures.
I’m probably being a bit idealistic, but I really think exposing 14-15 year olds to important questions people have raised over the years is an excellent idea. I think Descartes is a good place to start, but I also think Plato and maybe some British Empiricists and other Greeks should be thrown in too. I don’t think it would hurt any, and it might make the next generation a little more critical of what needs to be criticized
Except most high school kids (I know) have a dualistic world-view – at least, as dualistic as they can get – and it would probably not be wise to reinforce the idea in them through Descartes.
Would being “wrapped up in your own egocentric world.†Now would that not be the precise definition of Descarte’s retreat into “the mindâ€?
“suppose, accordingly, that all the things which I see are false (fictitious); I believe that none of those objects which my fallacious memory represents ever existed; I suppose that I possess no senses; I believe that body, figure, extension, motion, and place are merely fictionsâ€
And the solution - a retreat to the “reality†of your own head:
“I am, however, a real thing, and really existent; but what thing? The answer was, a thinking thing.â€
Meditations II
(from the SHIT translation at wright.edu/cola/descartes/meditation2.html)
Exactly!
krossie
Why isn’t is bad to introduce the dualistic worldview? If you counterbalance it with an easy monist (personally, I don’t think Spinoza’s that hard to read; maybe he could do the trick), it could create some very interesting cognitive dissonance in these kids.
I think Descartes is worthy of inclusion in high school cirriculums more because of his “doubt everything” mentality rather then the actual conclusions he draws.
I think its a convient kind of doubt - he always leaves himself his “I” his cogito and he has it there ready to go.
He knows what he wants to prove before he starts doubting and he makes sure that the demon leaves all his reasoning facilities intact.
Mind you more “confused kids” might shake things up a bit.
Dualism, moninisn, pluralism, metaphysical schema in general are all interesting human creations I suppose.
krossie
dualism is much older than descartes. You can first find it in Aristoteles.