A History of the Origins of World Philosophy, Seventeenth Century Western Philosophy No. 4: René. Descartes 3

Seventeenth Century Western Philosophy NO. 4: René. Descartes 3

Descartes' devotion to God can indeed be found in many of his writings, at least in terms of his sense of self: he happened to be a true Catholic. But, in spite of his innocent and lovely affection for the Catholic Church and God, the Catholic Church was never satisfied with him. So, despite the support of French Cardinal Richelieu, and despite the fact that the Netherlands was the most free-thinking country at the time, he lived in France, still uncomfortable, and moved to the Netherlands, which was equally rarely calm. Moreover, 13 years after his death, his writings were included in the list of banned books of the Roman Catholic Church. By 1691, even the French Emperor was impatient with his writings, and issued a ban on the teaching of any work on Descartes philosophy in any school in France. Descartes' relationship with the church and the dynasty can be described as intentional and merciless. Mr. Descartes died early at the age of 54, thankfully.

　　What a wronged Mr. Descartes! But, neither. If we analyze Descartes' view of religion not literally but in his deep sense, it is easy to see that this very devout Catholic is not actually religious. The so-called piety is just his self-feeling.

　　In fact, Descartes was the first person in modern Western history to attempt to explain religion philosophically, in other words, to see God through human eyes. According to the medieval ecclesiastical tradition, philosophy can only be a vassal of theology, and philosophers can only be slaves of the church, and now you dare to look at religion with a philosophical eye, even to argue for God, and not in general, but in a pious argument. But Descartes had his own reasons, he said: "I have always held that the two questions of God and the soul are the main questions which should be argued on philosophical grounds, not on theological grounds." For, though faith alone is enough for some religious people like us to believe that there is a God, that the human soul does not die with the body, we certainly cannot convince those who do not believe in any religion, not even in morality, without first proving these two things on natural grounds. Naturally, his explanation is also sincere. Not only sincere, but also quite a bit of flattery to the adults of the church. However, the wise Descartes had the misfortune to do another stupid thing: he forgot that God did not need to prove it, nor was he allowed to doubt, that doubt was heresy. Not believing in God is sin, and the wise Descartes wanted to prove God to people, and he also made such a statement, as if religion would be finished without philosophical explanation of religion. This is not so much devotion to religion as contempt for religion. Mr. Descartes was a little clever but was mistaken for cleverness.

　　Hegel also has a very incisive statement on this. He said: "From Descartes onwards philosophy has suddenly shifted into a completely different scope, a completely different point of view, that is, into the realm of subjectivity, into what is certain. What religion assumes is abandoned, and what people seek is only proof, not content. This method is not actually Descartes's personal opinion, at least it has been seen in Bruno, and in Hobbes, the country is already seen with human eyes. But since Descartes, people have begun to look at religion no longer in the old way, that is, they do not look at religion in a godly way, but with a philosophical eye. Because what people are looking for is just proof, not content.

Not only that, but Hegel further analyzes: "Thus, Descartes, like Fichte, has an absolutely definite 'I'; I know that this 'I' is presented in my heart. So philosophy got a completely different base. It is already blasphemous to look at the Supreme, omnipresent God from the point of view of "I", not to mention to write these views on paper and print them into books.

Descartes examines the existence of God as "I", not only thinking, not only saying, but speaking very boldly and profoundly and novelly interesting, and intentionally or unintentionally with irony. He put it in a cheerful way: "Since I have no reason to believe that there is a God who is a liar, and since I have thought about the reasons for proving that there is a God, the reasons for doubt based solely on this opinion are of course very flippant and (let me put it) metaphysical. But, in order to rule out this reason, I should check whether there is a God whenever the opportunity arises, and once I find a God, I should also check whether he is a liar. For if I do not know the truth of these two facts, I will not see that I can regard either thing as reliable. And in order for me to have the opportunity to do this examination without interrupting the order of contemplation which I have proposed to myself, that is, from the concepts which I first found in my mind to the concepts which may later be found in my mind, I must here divide my whole mind into categories, and in which classes there is really truth or error. Enough! If the Old Believers had heard this, even if they had not been so angry as to kill and set fire to people, they would have forgotten the nature of Christians to love all beings.

　　In order to prove God, Mr. Descartes first doubted God, and he also had to examine God, to check whether God really existed, to check whether God was a liar. And from this arises, step by step, deducing in his thinking what is wrong and what is truth. What truth, it is simply unreasonable. In the eyes of some researchers, his incomparably solemn, incomparably sincere, and incomparably rigorous theory of examination is irony and contempt.

Descartes' view of religion seems to be the most moderate compared to his contemporaries Bacon, Hobbes, Gassandis, and Pascal. Bacon advocated the separation of science from theology and left theology alone; Gassanti was a materialist who opposed Descartes' logic; Pascal thought that the existence of God was completely unnecessary; Hobbes simply dismissed God and theology. But even if I compare the most extreme of Hobbes's religious views with Descartes's skepticism, if I were a 17th-century Catholic, I would say that Hobbes's attitude was very evil, but Descartes's argument was even more vicious. Thus, with the subsequent banning of books, some people simply identified Descartes as an atheist.

　　What an atheist Descartes is! But in his peculiar way, he cast a piercing suspicion of traditional theology, and then said that there was indeed a God.

　　However, the naïve and wise Descartes, still the same, just meditated along his own lines, and he decided that no matter how many special universes God had created, these universes, under the action of the 'laws of nature', must sooner or later conform to the cosmic order and evolve into the actual universe. He also claimed that, because of his scientific knowledge, he knew far more about nature and of God's intentions than either the authors of Genesis or the theologians had dreamed.

(3) Unique practical thinking

　　Descartes was a great mathematician, so he considered mathematics to be a model of philosophy. He was eager to use mathematical methods to study logic, and worked hard to create a system of thought with the same certainty as mathematics. Descartes was also a metaphysician who believed in the transcendentality of human knowledge and always avoided the style and traces of medieval empirical philosophy. However, his philosophy is not a priori philosophy or scholastic philosophy after all, but his philosophy is a unique practical philosophy. He argues: "Philosophy is the perfect knowledge of all things about man's knowledge, both to guide life and to maintain health and discover various techniques. "

　　Needless to say, among the modern Western philosophers, Descartes was undoubtedly the one who was the best at contemplation. But his contemplation is not a theologian-style cumbersome philosophy, nor is it the general metaphysician-style contemplation, but a contemplator with science as the main stem and real life as the background of thought. As Russell said, before modern times, after Plato, most of the important philosophical figures in the West were university professors, but since modern times, the famous philosophers from Descartes to Kant have rarely taught at universities. Real life is their classroom, science and technology is their profession, they need a broad world as a background, "the sea is wide with fish leaping, the sky is high for birds to fly."

Descartes was particularly prominent in this regard. He opposed all traditional concepts, believing that these concepts were outdated and useless, that it was better not to practice them than not to study them, and that it was better not to study them than to study them, and the more they studied, the more confused they became. He considered it important to study the great book of the world, saying: "Even though we are familiar with all the reasoning of Plato and Aristotle, we can never become philosophers if we cannot make sound judgments on any proposition." Why is it that one is familiar with all the reasoning of Plato and Aristotle and still cannot become a philosopher? Because the reasoning methods of these human predecessors are no longer suitable for the requirements of this new era. Descartes was rightly skeptical of their methods. The former sages can no longer be teachers, and religion cannot be masters, so we can only learn from reality.

　　Descartes was both a contemplative of the modern scientific world and an advocate of a philosophy of practice with a unique taste. Coupled with the original dualistic nature of Descartes philosophy, on the one hand he was willing to acknowledge the existence of God and that God is a complete omnipotent; on the other hand, he held a physical and geometrical view of the real world as material reason. He believes: "Heaven and earth are only caused by the same matter, and there can be no multiple worlds." "God, ghost, doubt, contemplation, when it comes to the real world, sorry, there is only one, and the world can only be made of matter.

He said: "The earth and the heavens are caused by the same kind of matter; even if there are infinite numbers of worlds, these worlds are only caused by this one substance; it follows from this that there can be no more than one world, and therefore we understand plainly that the essence of matter is only that it is a broad thing, that it occupies all conceivable space in which these other worlds may exist, and that we cannot find in our own minds any other material idea." Not only is there only one kind of world that can only be made of matter, but the movement of this world is absolutely regular," and even if God created many worlds, there would not be a single world that did not obey these laws. "

　　The world is material, and the movement of the material world is regular—how pleasant it sounds! So, what about people? What about science? What about the will of man? Descartes' answer was particularly satisfactory. He said: "All science is nothing but human wisdom, and human wisdom is always unique, only similar to its own, no matter how different objects it applies to; it does not recognize any difference between objects, just as the sun does not recognize that all things are different from each other under the sun; so it is necessary to bind our minds to any boundary, since, as is the case with a single technique, the knowledge of one truth does not divert us from the revelation of another, but on the contrary assists us in revealing it." And as the will of man, "in a sense the will can be said to be infinite, because we see that the object of anyone's will, even the object of God's infinite will, can be the object of our will." "

Not only can man's knowledge and will be synchronized with God's—the same infinite realm—but even then, Descartes thinks it's not grand enough! His ideal, if he could say so, was expressed in his own words as "to make us the masters and possessors of nature." What a pleasing picture of practical philosophy to bring together these ideas. However, the true Cartesian philosophy does not employ such a clear logical system. But from his various writings we can indeed feel that his understanding of these ideas is profound, even if they are not causally distinct in his unique dualistic system.

【For more wonderful articles, please pay attention to the WeChat public account "History of World Nations and Civilizations"】