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

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

(4) Wonderful theoretical fulcrum: I think, therefore I am

　　"I think, therefore I am" is the core thesis of Descartes' philosophy, and it is also the most influential and charming aphorism he left to posterity. Later generations had all kinds of understandings, all kinds of arguments, all kinds of understandings, and all kinds of dissatisfaction with this aphorism. There are criticisms and praises, there are five bodies thrown to the ground and there are also scorns, and there are angry hair and crowns and there are also reasons to hear. Until the great philosophers of the modern era, Kant and Hegel, until Marx, and all kinds of representative figures of modern and contemporary philosophy have expressed various opinions on it. The denier says, I think, therefore I am, just gibberish, there is no value. You think so you exist, and if you don't think about it, like you're asleep, in shock, dead, are you non-existent? This is really one of the simplest common sense questions, and it is not worth refuting: I think therefore I am - not in common sense.

　　However, it is not so simple. If it is really simple, can it still arouse the interest of so many intelligent heads? Can there be so many great philosophical figures who have spent their precious lives on it? Would the wise and wise Descartes still write a book for it?

　　Yes, although only people can think, as a person, even if he has no thoughts, doesn't he still exist as a person? However, this is not entirely the case. Because thinking is the sign of man, if you lose this sign - there is no ability to think at all, although people can still recognize you as a person, you have lost yourself, that is, you have lost your existence as a human being. And if all human beings have completely lost the ability to think or have not acquired the ability to think, then if it is not the disappearance of human beings, it is the unborn of human beings.

　　Just think, no matter who is a saint, a great man, a mediocre person, a bad person, or even a low-energy child, he only has the qualification to be a man if he exists in the mind of man. He knew that he had parents, relatives, friends, teachers, joys, sorrows, jobs, desires; he knew that he wanted to survive, to live, to dress, to eat, to marry, to honor, to be dignified, to be civilized. And all that is in life, nothing less. If all this is gone, at least in the mind there are no more parents, no more relatives, no more friends, no more teachers, no more joy, anger, sorrow, happiness, no more love, no more love, no desire, no life, no eating, no marriage, no honor, no dignity, no civilization, all life has, nothing, then, even if he was once a great man, we still have to say that he has lost the reality of existence as a human being, and that there is indeed such a person in modern medical clinics. However, modern medicine still gives them a very vivid and accurate name according to its characteristics - vegetative. Vegetative people, such as plant-like people, are also called.

　　May I ask, can plants be counted as human beings? If you can, then cutting down a tree is killing people, and killing people should pay for their lives - isn't that messy?

　　However, the proposition "I think, therefore I am" does have obvious shortcomings and is divorced from Cartesian philosophical logic. The shortcomings of this proposition are even more obvious:

　　First, it really doesn't fit common sense. Common sense tells us that matter and spirit cannot be separated. On the one hand, it is not enough to be a person without thinking, or to lose thinking is to lose the essence of man; on the other hand, there is no human being, how can we say and think. I think, therefore, I have thoughts in your absence.

　　Second, thinking cannot be acquired naturally. For example, a newborn baby has no thinking, at least no complete thinking, at best, he only has the physiological basis for developing thinking, and he cannot naturally obtain the ability to think, and he absolutely does not understand what "I think, therefore I am". Otherwise, Descartes would not have had to study at the Lavry School, and he would not have to spend so much time reading the great book of the world.

　　So, what was Descartes' own thinking?

　　His basic ideas are very clearly expressed in his masterpiece "The First Meditations".

　　The First Meditation Collection proposes a total of 6 meditations, 6 meditations are interlocked, and the development process of 6 meditations is the trajectory of his philosophical thinking.

　　His first contemplation begins with doubt, because to doubt, to meditate, but doubt and contemplation are not empty delusions but are directly related to science. He said: "I propose that as long as we can find no other basis in science than those which have existed up to now, then we have reason to doubt everything, especially material things. "

The second meditation is the logical development of the first meditation and the focus of the meditation set, which centrally discusses the method of doubt. He said: "In the third meditation, the spirit, with its own freedom, assumes that all things do not exist at the slightest doubt about their existence, but never to think that it does not exist in itself. Or to put it in plain language, that is, what to doubt, how to doubt.

　　The third meditation discusses the existence of God, and the fourth meditation discusses truth and error. Both the fifth and sixth meditations fall within the scope of the discussion of the existence of objects, but the emphasis is different: the fifth meditation focuses on continuing the existence of God, while the sixth meditation focuses on the relationship between the soul and the body.

　　In this way, we can get a rough idea of Descartes' thinking. Descartes' proposition "I think, therefore I am, starts from the basis of doubt, then discusses the method of doubt, then discusses the existence of God, then discusses truth and error, then discusses the nature of material content, then discusses the existence of God, and finally discusses the relationship between the soul and the body.

　　So why did Descartes choose such an approach?

　　For, first, the time of Descartes was the time when individualism began to flourish. Prior to this, although the wind of individualism had its beginnings, it was not emphasized - the breeze was blowing, and the general trend was not achieved. In the age of humanism, it was mainly about fighting for the status of man—that man should have his place before God.

　　So the painter paints man, even if he paints God, he is like man; the writer writes about man, not only about love, but also about desire, and I will write about all that mortals have; thinkers analyze the relationship between man and God, criticize the decay of the church, and praise the greatness and nobility of man; scientists break the old theological theories and consciously or unconsciously stand in opposition to the medieval theological tradition. But man is not yet "me", although "I" is indeed a person, which is a comparative language that cannot be reversed. This situation was not very pronounced in Bacon; Hobbes, out of his own system of doctrine, naturally did not attach great importance to this, and his attention was not on individualistic taste, but on the doctrine of the state. Descartes came into being as an individualist pioneer thinker, with a new look of "I", single-handedly, with the mind of the wise, to discuss and practice the problems that history has raised and urgently need to be solved.

So why does such an era necessarily produce such a theme? He replied that because in the era of capitalist liberal economy, it was precisely the values of individualism that were affectionately called for, and its early forms came to the stage of history in a unique philosophical way in the Cartesian style. Hegel had a very incisive analysis of this. He said that the "point of departure" of Descartes' philosophy is the absolutely certain 'I'; I know this 'I' present in my heart. So philosophy got a completely different base. Examining the content itself is not the first thing; only the 'I' is definite and direct. I can take away all my ideas [but I can't take away 'me']. Thinking is the first thing; the next regulation that follows is directly related to the mind, that is, the regulation of existence. My mind, this thought directly contains my existence; he said, this is the absolute basis of all philosophy. Figuratively speaking, it is from the perspective of "I" that Descartes begins his philosophical journey with strong colors by means of skepticism by means of the subject of thought.

　　But Descartes, in proposing and arguing his proposition, was by no means an easy task. In his position, he had neither the boldness of a Hobbes nor the external environment of the Hobbesian style, and with his erudition and profundity, he would not have dealt with such a major philosophical subject in such a simple way. His way of thinking is profound and complex, step by step following strict logical reasoning, and full of whimsy. In his second meditation, when he concentrated on the proposition of "I think, therefore I am," he really took a lot of trouble and a lot of brains.

　　Descartes' approach is to assume that everything does not exist, or to begin with doubts about everything, i.e., doubts about everything, whether it is the world of man or the world of God, and doubts not only the world but also the existence or non-existence of itself, "I.". It was only after such outright doubt that he decided that there was no doubt in itself, that only the mind itself was a solid existence. In other words, I can assume that everything does not exist, but even so, the I who is assuming (thinking) must exist. So, the conclusion came — I thought, therefore I was.

　　He himself said, after doubting everything, "So what am I?" It's a thing that's thinking. What is a thinking thing? That is to say, one is doubting, comprehending, affirming, denying, willing, unwilling, imagining, feeling things. That's pretty much it.

In introducing Cartesian philosophy, Russell also quoted a passage from Descartes and identified it as "the core of Descartes' epistemology, containing the most important points in his philosophy." This passage goes like this: "When I want to think of everything as false, this thinking 'I' must be something; I realize that the truth 'I think, therefore I am' is so solid, so sure, that all the most arrogant assumptions of the skeptics cannot be overturned, and I conclude that I can admit without hesitation that it is the first principle in the philosophy which I seek." "

Descartes not only cherished but also had faith in his philosophical ideas. He said that the philosophical thinking he engaged in was only to "seek the truth," and to that end, "I can doubt everything, even mathematical propositions." Moreover, he considers doubt to be a freedom, declaring that "we have a wealth of experience in proving that we have a freedom to always give up what is not very true and unfounded." "

Descartes does not make false statements, he says "I think, therefore I am", the purpose of which is to doubt the old traditions and methods of thought, the old rules and theories, the old ideas and systems, the old theology and mathematics, and even all the old philosophy, science and culture. In this sense, we can say that Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is to prove my existence with my mind, and to doubt all old traditions with my existence, and thus to prove the truths that can be confirmed by doubt.

　　Only in this way, Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is not just a famous saying, a maxim, or a thought-provoking witticism—it would be too small to look at Descartes, but represents a trend of thought, a philosophical system with a rigorous connotation, and a historical era.

　　Descartes philosophy emphasizes the role of human thinking, which is to inherit and develop the Taoism and spirit of humanistic philosophy; Cartesian philosophy emphasizes the thinking role of "I", which also represents and reflects the interest and maturity of the individualist value system; Descartes philosophy emphasizes the theoretical value of "thinking", and also highlights the style and characteristics of continental rationalist philosophy.

　　From the perspective of Descartes' life, he was originally a gentlemanly scholar who feared religious forces, especially God; he was afraid of political forces, especially extreme political forces. It was only in philosophical thinking that he showed the awe-inspiring and fearless scholarly integrity that he should have. He expresses his determination and courage in the First Philosophical Meditations: "Therefore I will suppose that there is a monster, and not a true God (who is the source of the supreme truth), whose cunning and deceitful means are no less powerful than his skill, and who has exhausted his wit to deceive me." I want to think that the heavens, the air, the earth, the colors, the shapes, the sounds, and all the external things we see are nothing more than illusions and deceptions that he uses to deceive my credulous trust. I want to see myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, no senses, and mistakenly believe that I have these things. I will hold this in firm faith; if in this way I do not know any truth, then at least I am in a position not to judge. It is for this reason that I shall be careful not to believe anything wrong, and to prepare me mentally to deal with all the cunning means of this great deceiver, so that he will never be able to impose anything on me, no matter how powerful and cunning he may be. Think of even "a certain youkai" in order to defend your mind; and that this "youkai is no less cunning and deceitful than his skill", and that "he has exhausted his wit to deceive me". This is a very serious and very special test. But what would happen to the gentlemanly Mr. Descartes in the face of such a situation? No matter how powerful and cunning he is, he is not afraid. Instead of being afraid, we must also "be careful", and those who should be suspicious should still be doubted.

　　The European way of expression is indeed too complicated, if replaced by the language we Chinese, it is "the three armies can win the marshal, but the puppet cannot win the will." Indeed, judging from the historical role played by Cartesian philosophy, he did not think in vain.

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