Why I Love Descartes

He’s a philosopher who hates on philosophy.

Descartes, Discourse on Method, Part I:

Of philosophy I will say nothing, except that when I saw that it had been cultivated for many ages by the most distinguished men, and that yet there is not a single matter within its sphere which is not still in dispute, and nothing, therefore, which is above doubt, I did not presume to anticipate that my success would be greater in it than that of others; and further, when I considered the number of conflicting opinions touching a single matter that may be upheld by learned men, while there can be but one true, I reckoned as well-nigh false all that was only probable.

Related posts:

  1. I Think I’m in Love
  2. Why I Love Geek Shops
  3. Why I Love My Current Gig
  4. Music To Make Love To Your Old Code By
This entry was posted in Metacognition. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • http://twitter.com/BHurt42 Brian

    Heh. St. Thomas Aquinas says something similar- in talking about whether philosophy alone is sufficient, he basically says (I’m paraphrasing heavily here) that philosophy (by itself) never manages to draw a conclusion.

  • http://hamletdarcy.blogspot.com Hamlet D’Arcy

    The original title of “Discourse on Method” was “Why Philosophy Sucks” but he was forced to change it when a bunch of philosophers complained it was too negative.

  • http://bayleshanks.com Bayle Shanks

    then you’ll love Kant. My interpretation of the following is that he sees all metaphysics before his own as needing to be thrown out (or at least re-examined) after laying better epistemological foundations.


    This much is certain, that whoever has once tasted Critique
    will be ever after disgusted with all dogmatical twaddle which be
    formerly put up with, because his reason must have something, and
    could find nothing better for its support.

    Critique stands in the same relation to the common
    metaphysics of the schools, as chemistry does to alchemy, or as
    astronomy to the astrology of the fortune-teller. I pledge myself
    that nobody who has read through and through, and grasped the
    principles of, the Critique even in these Prolegomena only, will
    ever return to that old and sophistical pseudo-science; but will
    rather with a certain delight look forward to metaphysics which
    is now indeed in his power, requiring no more preparatory
    discoveries, and now at last affording permanent satisfaction to
    reason. For here is an advantage upon which, of all possible
    sciences, metaphysics alone can with certainty reckon: that it
    can be brought to such completion and fixity as to be incapable
    of further change, or of any augmentation by new discoveries;
    because here reason has the sources of its knowledge in itself,
    not in objects and their observation [Anschauung], by which
    latter its stock of knowledge cannot be further increased. When
    therefore it has exhibited the fundamental laws of its faculty
    completely and so definitely as to avoid all misunderstanding,
    there remains nothing for pure reason to know a priori, nay,
    there is even no ground to raise further questions. The sure
    prospect of knowledge so definite and so compact has a peculiar
    charm, even though we should set aside all its advantages, of
    which I shall hereafter speak.

    All false art, all vain wisdom, lasts its time, but finally
    destroys itself, and its highest culture is also the epoch of its
    decay. That this time is come for metaphysics appears from the
    state into which it has fallen among all learned nations, despite
    of all the zeal with which other sciences of every kind are
    prosecuted. The old arrangement of our university studies still
    preserves its shadow; now and then an Academy of Science tempts
    men by offering prizes to write essays on it, but it is no longer
    numbered among thorough sciences; and let any one judge for
    himself how a man of genius, if he were called a great
    metaphysician, would receive the compliment, which may be well-
    meant, but is scarce envied by anybody.

    ….
    Ever since I have come to know critique, whenever I finish
    reading a book of metaphysical contents, which, by the
    preciseness of its notions, by variety, order, and an easy style,
    was not only entertaining but also helpful, I cannot help asking,
    11 Has this author indeed advanced metaphysics a single step?”
    The learned men, whose works have been useful to me in other
    respects and always contributed to the culture of my mental
    powers, will, I hope, forgive me for saying, that I have never
    been able to find either their essays or my own less important
    ones (though self-love may recommend them to me) to have advanced the science of metaphysics in the least, and why?

    Here is the very obvious reason: metaphysics did not then
    exist as a science, nor can it be gathered piecemeal, but its
    germ must be fully preformed in the Critique. But in order to
    prevent all misconception, we must remember what has been already
    said, that by the analytical treatment of our concepts the
    understanding gains indeed a great deal, but the science (of
    metaphysics) is thereby not in the least advanced, because these
    dissections of concepts are nothing but the materials from which
    the intention is to carpenter our science. Let the concepts of
    substance and of accident be ever so well dissected and
    determined, all this is very well as a preparation for some
    future use. But if we cannot prove, that in all which exists the
    substance endures, and only the accidents vary, our science is
    not the least advanced by all our analyzes.

    Metaphysics has hitherto never been able to prove a priori
    either this proposition, or that of sufficient reason, still less
    any more complex theorem, such as belongs to psychology or
    cosmology, or indeed any synthetical proposition. By all its
    analyzing therefore nothing is affected, nothing obtained or
    forwarded and the science, after all this bustle and noise, still
    remains as it was in the days of Aristotle, though far better
    preparations were made for it than of old, if the clue to
    synthetical cognitions had only been discovered.

    If any one thinks himself offended, he is at liberty to
    refute my charge by producing a single synthetical proposition
    belonging to metaphysics, which he would prove dogmatically a
    priori, for until he has actually performed this feat, I shall
    not grant that he has truly advanced the science; even should
    this proposition be sufficiently confirmed by common experience.
    No demand can be more moderate or more equitable, and in the
    (inevitably certain) event of its non-performance, no assertion
    more just, than that hitherto metaphysics has never existed as a
    science.


    My purpose is, to convince all those who care to trouble themselves with metaphysics, that it is indispensably necessary for the present to suspend their work, to look upon all that is gone before as non-existent, and, above all things, first to propose the question “Whether such a thing as metaphysics be even possible at all?”

    If it be a science, how comes it that it cannot like other sciences win for itself a universal and lasting recognition? If it be not one, how is it that under the semblance of a science it is ceaselessly boasting and holding out to the human understanding hopes that are never extinguished and never fulfilled? Something must be definitely decided respecting the nature of this assumed science, whether it be to demonstrate our knowledge or our ignorance; for it is impossible that it should remain longer on the same footing as heretofore. It seems well-nigh ridiculous, while every other science ceaselessly progresses, that this which is supposed to be wisdom itself, whose oracle every one interrogates, is continually turning round on the same spot, without moving a step in advance. Its votaries have also much decreased, and we do not see those who feel themselves strong enough to shine in other sciences, willing to risk their fame in this, where every one, ignorant though he be in all else, ventures upon a decided opinion, because forsooth in this sphere there is no certain weight and measure at hand by which to distinguish profundity from worthless jargon.

  • http://bayleshanks.com Bayle Shanks

    And this quote by Kant is a different topic (hating on philosophers, rather than philosophy), but I couldn’t resist. I think here he is responding to complaints by readers that his book Critique of Pure Reason is too hard to read, long-winded, and boring:


    But I fear that the execution of Hume’s problem in its
    widest extent (viz., my Critique of the Pure Reason) will fare as
    the problem itself fared, when first proposed. It will be
    misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because
    men choose to skim through the book, and not to think through it-
    a disagreeable task, because the work is dry, obscure, opposed to
    all ordinary notions, and moreover long-winded. I confess,
    however, I did not expect, to hear from philosophers complaints
    of want of popularity, entertainment, and facility, when the
    existence of a highly prized and indispensable cognition is at
    stake, which cannot be established otherwise, than by the
    strictest rules of methodic precision.

  • Categories