Modern philosophy was born in the seventeenth century. Philosophers from this time period are remembered for their emphasis on rationalism. They did not rely on the senses at all, but instead regarded reason as the means by which one creates a brand new philosophy. Descartes and Pascal are two seventeenth century philosophers who are famous for their dependence on reason, especially deductive, to explain mankind. Their metaphysical philosophies revolve around spiritual perfection and stress the soul’s inherent desire for contemplative happiness. However, their theories were too dogmatic for some and many were not convinced. Thus, during the Enlightenment, a new type of philosophy emerged that was centered around empiricism. These philosophers sought an alternative to the innate ideas of Cartesian rationalism and came up with a theory focused on observation and experimentation. Furthermore, some Enlightenment philosophers felt it was important to interact socially with others to discuss ideas and debate them. Previously, all contemplation was done in solitude. While the Enlightenment theories did answer some questions left by the rationalist theories, it was not perfect itself. Overall, the Enlightenment philosophies attempted to clear up the problems left by the seventeenth century rationalist thinkers, but instead ending up creating new ones.
Descartes is often referred to as the father of modern philosophy. He was among the first to consider human doubt a positive element, and a way to eventually find the truth. He began Discourse on Method by explaining that this ability to judge and distinguish between true and false, or reason, was innate and equal in all men. In addition, it was what distinguished humans from other animals. To use this reason it was best, according to Descartes, for man to be alone. He explained, “We notice that buildings conceived and completed by a single architect are usually more beautiful and better planned than those remodeled by several persons…”[1]
In his actual method, Descartes relied heavily on mathematics, as he was the founder of analytical geometry. He wrote, “I was especially pleased with mathematics, because of the certainty and self-evidence of its proofs…”[2] Thus, it makes perfect sense that Descartes attempted to start off with self-evident truths, just like analytical geometry begins with axioms that cannot be doubted. Descartes found that men could doubt everything, except the fact that they doubted. From this, Descartes came up with the cogito, which proved human existence. In order for something to think, it must exist. Descartes therefore concluded that if one doubts or thinks, he must exist.
Descartes also stressed dualism. He found that the body and soul were two entirely separate things. He classified substances into two groups: thinking and extended. Thinking substances were also referred to as res cogitans and extended substances were also called res extensa. The body was an extended substance while the human soul was essentially thought, and thus a thinking substance. Each individual soul was directly from God, and not biological at all. Descartes expanded on this by suggesting that there were innate ideas that God gave to everyone when he gave them their soul. Descartes demonstrated his idea of dualism with an example involving a candle melting. In his Second Meditation, Descartes wrote,
“What is it then in this bit of wax that we recognize with so much distinctness? Certainly it cannot be anything that I observed with the senses, since everything in the field of taste, smell, sight, touch and hearing are changed, and since the same wax nevertheless remains.”[3]
By including this example, Descartes demonstrated how he mistrusted the senses and attempted to prove that only the existence of a separate thinking substance, the soul, allows us to determine that the wax is still wax even when in liquid form.
Descartes continued by explaining all of the ways that one can obtain an idea, or mode of thought. Besides those innate ideas put inside the soul by God, there were also ideas from without and invented ideas. From this, he drew his proof of the existence of God. His logic was that the idea of something infinite must have been put inside the heads of all humans by something infinite because humans alone cannot produce an infinite idea. So, that infinite being, or God, must exist and He must have created everyone and put the idea of Himself into all souls.
Overall, Descartes had a very optimistic view of human nature. He thought man’s greatest gift was free will and therefore, the ability to suspend judgment. According to Descartes free will spontaneously wants the good and the truth. As a result, no one ever sins knowingly. Happiness to Descartes was communion with god, very much like what Augustine thought. Lastly, he emphasized that the sole purpose of the senses was to survive and adapt to the situations around us. The truth should be determined by res cogitans instead of the senses.
Pascal was another seventeenth century rationalist who shared many of Descartes’ beliefs. However, their philosophies were not completely alike. Like Descartes, Pascal believed in dualism, with a radical difference between res cogitans and res extensa. In Pensées, Pascal wrote, “I can well imagine a man without hands, feet, or head, since only experience teaches us the head is more necessary than the feet.”[4] This thought demonstrates how Pascal also thought that the body was simply an extended substance. As Pascal continued with his philosophy though, he drifted away from Descartes somewhat. Besides the mind and body, Pascal added charity as a third order. To him, charity was the highest order one could reach and grace was required to get there. Pascal passionately described the smallest act of charity being greater than all of math, science, and every machine ever created.
Pascal again diverged from Descartes in his proof of God. Descartes used ontological arguments, while Pascal preferred to show the prudential reasons for believing in God. In his wager argument, Pascal reasoned that it was best to take a chance and believe in God because the return would be infinite. Unlike Descartes, he never made a definite conclusion that God existed, but instead just pointed out that it was much more rational to believe in God than not to because of the possibility of an infinite return.
While both Pascal and Descartes were brilliant men who made revolutionary changes to philosophy, neither of their theories was ever completely accepted. This is partly because their philosophies left behind numerous problems for people to struggle with. To many, Descartes’ methods were simply a fanciful way of constructing man with absolutely no data. The giant leaps that Descartes took from man thinking and being to God existing were just too much for some people to comprehend and accept. Furthermore, it was not possible for some people to throw away the idea of trusting the senses. Also, Descartes’ theory of innate ideas was difficult to accept for some because it seems quite miraculous and there is really no way of proving it. Plus, if everyone had the same innate ideas imbedded in them, it would seem that there would be no question as to an infinite God existing and Descartes’ proof would not be necessary at all.
Pascal’s theory had an equal amount of objections. People found it impossible to accept a belief simply because of a decision to do so. In his wager argument, Pascal asked all men to believe in God because it would result in the best outcome. However, beliefs cannot just come about because one suddenly decides that the reward for believing is enough. Just because the reward might be better, it does not prove that the belief is correct or that it is possible to attain this belief by simply choosing it. Furthermore, Pascal’s decision theory never indicates that Christianity is the best way to attain the infinite reward of believing. Pascal leaves room for any religion to be considered a possible way by which to reach the same goal of infinite return.
Because Descartes and Pascal left so many unanswered questions and problems to contend with, Enlightenment philosophers had reason to construct new types of philosophies. One man in particular who sought to overcome the shortcomings of the overly rationalist approach was Locke. Locke was one of the many who returned to empiricism. In other words, he placed all faith in observation and experience and gave a large role to the senses while minimizing the place of reasoning in the attaining of truth. He was like Descartes in that he found it necessary to start all over again and work from the ground up. However, his similarities to Descartes stop there. Locke directly opposed Descartes’ theory on innate ideas. According to Locke, if innate ideas existed, then small children would know them best, which certainly is not the case. Instead, Locke proposed that ideas come from experience only. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke wrote, “All ideas come from sensation or reflection. Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas.”[5] Here, Locke demonstrated how humans were born with a completely blank mind. From experience, the mind is built up. This is problematic because there was nothing in his theory that barred racism and those cultures with more technology and better systems of education would always have the advantage to logic. Locke’s theory is also vulnerable because of his idea that consciousness made one the person that he was. If this were the case, being drunk or blacked out would cause someone to be a completely different person. Locke succeeded in loosening the cohesion between religious beliefs and methodology and concluded that the notion of self was the function of experience.
Diderot took yet a different approach. Diderot had a new interest in social interaction. In D’Alembert’s Dream, Diderot has three friends in his bedroom discussing philosophy. This was shocking to many because the bedroom was previously thought of as a very private place and contemplation was always done in private. Also, this was completely different from Descartes’ viewpoint that philosophies should be built by one person. This demonstrates the shift in the eighteenth century to thinking through conversation and social interaction.
Diderot further disagreed with Descartes about matter. Descartes suggested that there was one kind of matter with two different kinds of substances. Diderot refuted this by arguing that there was no way to prove both of these substances. Furthermore, Descartes stressed that matter was completely inert and the laws of motion applied to it. However, Diderot also added sensitivity to molecules. Unfortunately though, Diderot never really explained what makes these molecules sensitive and thus left an unanswered question that lessened the whole reliability of his theory.
Diderot continued by discussing the history of how humans got to their present condition. He felt that people have evolved because of their needs and that there was not a fixed essence, but instead something like a Bell Curve that was continuous. To Diderot, it was merely the materials that comprised man that made him human. Individuality was a result of the organization of matter only. This presented the problem of accountability though, because when the matter was organized into an individual person, everything was determined. Thus, it was difficult to blame someone for something that they might not have had control of.
Adam Smith was yet another philosopher who attempted to come up with a theory to explain the present condition of society and the world around it. Like Diderot, Smith found that it was best to start off with a blank slate, meaning that everyone was born the same without any innate ideas. To Smith, when a person is first born they are nothing. They must prove themselves and gain material wealth to be recognized by others. This was a very liberating way of looking at things, considering how feudalism constrained people and prevented them from ever advancing in life. However, it also was problematic in that the burden of being nobody at first is difficult. This burden could ultimately lead people to perform actions that lead to instant fame, such as murder or other crimes. In addition, it could eventually lead to racism, where people would settle on at least being better than others.
Smith also proposed a free market theory. With this theory, each person pursues his own self-interest. By doing so, he would be doing what was best for society as a whole. The fact that his theory is based on society as a whole and relies on constant human interaction shows similarities to Diderot, who also valued social interaction for the betterment of everyone. An “invisible hand,” competition, was the fuel of the economy to Smith. The competition would drive the market and provide for a constant re-circulation of wealth. This free market would also require that people judge themselves based on wealth and success. Those who did not have wealth or success would be invisible to everyone else. Smith wrote, “The poor man, on the contrary, is ashamed of his poverty. He feels that it either places him out of sight of mankind, or that if they take an notice of him they have, however, scarce any fellow-feeling with the misery and distress which he suffers.”[6] Thus, Smith’s main principle was one of self-betterment that would be recognized by society. This was entirely different from both Descartes and Pascal who deliberately lived poorly and gave no regards to material wealth or the opinions of others. Smith’s reliance on wealth created problems because competition often eventually leads to animosity and jealousy, which Smith failed to address. Furthermore, Smith does not allow for much individuality because it has to be given up in favor of conformity to make the most money possible. Also, there is an increased chance of cheating and stealing when material goods determine how a person is viewed. Lastly, Smith’s theory does not allow the self to have a notion of “my vocation.” Instead, people strive only to be better than others, not to reach their individual potential.
While all of the philosophers discussed have some valid arguments and ideas, none of their philosophies are perfect. Perhaps this is because no philosophy can ever be perfect. To this day, there is no way to explain the world and what is possibly outside of it. Until man is able to scientifically able to prove the existence of God, it will only be through faith that people can believe in a higher being or even multiple higher beings. Descartes tried to prove the existence of an infinite being, but he failed to be very convincing. He relied on innate ideas, which must not exist because people from different areas of the world have different beliefs on God. Some people are atheists so they do not acknowledge any infinite being whatsoever. If everyone had the same innate idea of God, then no one could possibly deny the existence of God. Plus, all religions would have the same basic belief, which is certainly not the case.
It seems much more logical to include only what can be proved scientifically in philosophies, like the Enlightenment philosophers did. However, this creates problems because then God obviously cannot be included at all. To its advantage, however, Bacon and Newton relied heavily on science in their theories and ended up producing clear ideas with no loose ends left behind. However, there are limits to science. Science cannot explain emotions such as love, which are acknowledged by most people. Plus, Newton insisted that it was possible to make generalizations to make things universal, which does not seem to be too exact. Generalizing allows doubt to creep in.
Although a perfect philosophy is impossible, it seems there are qualities that a philosophy must possess to make it as close to perfection as possible. First of all, it must have humans starting off with no innate ideas, as Descartes suggested. This is commonly referred to as the “blank slate” approach which both Locke and Diderot used. Then, it must have people gaining ideas and knowledge from their experiences, an idea that Locke stressed. Universal facts would be determined only after scientific experimentation. There would be absolutely no combining of religion and science, because clearly, that is impossible. Social interaction, like that which Diderot and Smith suggested, would be involved in creating this philosophy because it is important to have more than one opinion included and questioning from others would be useful to acknowledge different viewpoints.
Even though these qualities will aid in the production of an exceptional philosophy, it will never be perfect. There are simply too many ideas, thoughts, feelings, and occurrences that cannot be proved. Numerous logical philosophies exist, but it is impossible to take qualities from different theories and mold them together into one ultimate, perfect philosophy.
Works Cited:
[1] Descartes, Discourse on Method and Meditations; Laurence J. Lafleur, translator. (NJ:Prentice Hall, 1952) p. 10
[2] Descartes, p. 7
[3] Descartes, p. 87
[4] Pascal, Pensées; Honor Levi, translator. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) p. 36
[5] Locke, The Portable Enlightenment Reader, edited by Isaac Kramnick. (New York; Penguin Books, 1995) p. 186
[6] Smith, The Wealth of Nations in The Enlightenment Reader, Issac Kraminick, editor. (New York;Penguin Books, 1995) p. 512
