|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
The Great Thinkers of Western Philosophy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VI. The "Res Extensa" and the Mechanism of the Universe Descartes proves the existence of the world, not from the testimony of our experience of this fact but from the innate idea of the "res extensa." We have a certain idea that is clear (presenting but one quality, extension), and it is distinct from the "res cogitans." This idea, granted the veracity of God, cannot be false; hence the world exists, and its principal attribute is extension. Concerning the nature of this corporeal world, Descartes distinguishes between what is presented to us through the senses (colors, odors, tastes, tactile sensations) and that which comes by way of the intellect, i.e., dimension, figure, weight, position, motion. The first, not guaranteed by the veracity of God, do not have objective value; they are secondary qualities, modes with which the subject represents reality. The second which, according to Descartes, must be innate ideas, are primary qualities and are guaranteed by the veracity of God; hence they are real and objective. The Cartesian World is characterized by the essential attribute of extension ("res extensa"), which is infinite. In this extension the power of God has placed force and movement, which are determined by the principle of absolute causality. Not purpose (finalism), but mechanical determination (matter and mathematical laws of motion) governs the succession of phenomena in the physical world, in the "res extensa." The world is a machine. The inorganic world, plants and animals, and even man, as far as his body is concerned, are machines governed by the laws of causality of motion. VII. The Dualism of Substances The entire Cartesian system rests upon a metaphysical dualism: "res cogitans" (God and the human soul) and "res extensa" (the corporeal world). These two realities are irreducible, in so far as thought, liberty and activity are essential to the world of the thinking being, and extension, mechanical determinism and passivity are essential to the world of the "res extensa." All reciprocal action between the two substances is excluded because it is impossible. Thus there is opened up the problem which was later to be taken up by rationalism: the determination of the relationship between spirit and matter; between God (the infinite spirit) and the world (finite matter). This problem presented even graver difficulties in connection with the Cartesian concept of substance -- that which exists without need of the concursus of any other to exist. Such a definition of substance is applicable only to God, who because He is causa sui, is a substance that has no need of the concursus of another in order to exist. But finite beings also are substances; and although Descartes had added that finite beings need the concursus of God in order to exist, the passage to the monistic concept of single substance appears quite open; this was to be the point of departure for Spinoza. To this we must add the fact that Descartes considers thought not as an act, but as the thinking substance ("res cogitans"), that is, as a soul, whose essence is thought. Now such an identification belongs only to God; hence it is easy to see in this teaching of Descartes the danger of unifying the concepts of man and God ("homo -- Deus") and hence the latent danger of pantheism. In the world of Cartesian matter, there exist no qualities, but only quantity, matter and motion, which act fatally, necessarily and mechanically. The mechanistic concept was to be inherited by Rationalism and Empiricism, which considered the world as a huge machine acting through mechanical forces, without purpose. Cartesian Rationalism finds its application even in ethics. For Descartes, ethics is the science of the end of man, and this end must be determined by reason. Before reason can arrive at the knowledge of such an end, and of the means of reaching it, the philosopher and only the philosopher must construct a provisory morality, a model of life capable of assuring him tranquillity, a standard which he will follow until such time as definitive and rational morality appears to his reason. Provisory morality is made up of a few precepts: Live according to the politico-religious opinions and customs of the country; follow mean (i.e., moderate) and not extreme opinions; govern yourself with constancy, without letting yourself be distracted by opportunistic considerations. In a word, live in such a manner as to assure yourself the greatest tranquillity. Regarding definitive morality, Descartes holds to the full liberty of God, so that all depends on the divine liberty. God, if He so wished, could have created a world governed by moral principles opposed to those which hold today. Such an idea brings ethics to the brink of disaster, for a morality like this would not find its justification in the absolute essence of God but in the arbitrary act of His will. Granted the present order of creation, Descartes recognizes that the end of man is virtue and happiness. The actuation of this end is brought about through reason -- through the knowledge of God, of the soul, and of the world. It is attained through knowledge of God because God is the creator and unifier of the universe; of the soul, because the soul makes clear to us our superiority over material nature; of the physical world, because, governed by causal necessity, it teaches man the virtue of resignation and indifference in the face of the evils of life. As is evident, Cartesian morality does not greatly differ from Stoic ethics in which the wise man appeals to reason in order to assure himself of tranquillity and felicity. IX. The Development of Cartesian Rationalism Descartes left two questions unsolved:
To fill the gap which he left between the infinite and finite, between spirit and matter, there were three possible solutions to be had through recourse to earlier philosophers. All three solutions were tried and developed by later philosophers: Spinoza, Malebranche and Leibniz, whose systems can justly be considered as developments of the rationalistic premises of Cartesian principles. The first possible solution lay in uniting Cartesianism with Platonism and conceiving of the two Cartesian substances (thought-substance and extended substance) as attributes deriving from a single divine substance. This was the solution of Spinoza, the strongest and most coherent of the Cartesian thinkers. He abolished the distinction between finite and infinite, and explained monistically and pantheistically the procession of the finite from the infinite. Spinoza answered the first of the unsolved questions, that of the relationship between God and creatures. But he maintained the second distinction and determined the relationship between soul and body by a psycho-physical law: That which is produced in thought by its very nature finds determination in extension (body). The second possible solution came from Augustinianism. Augustinianism, faced with the impossibility of deriving concepts from experience, had recourse to God, to a divine illumination in which God actually implants ideas in the human intellect. This supernatural intervention or influence could be extended to all finite reality in such a manner as to fill in the gap between the infinite and the finite, between spirit and matter, through the intervention of God Himself. This was the solution taken by Malebranche, according to whom creatures are the simple occasions; a direct intervention of God is the direct cause of all effects (Occasionalism). As a Christian Malebranche maintains the distinction between God and the world, two forces which were unified in Spinoza. But in determining the relationship between God and the world, Malebranche also has recourse to God. This he achieves in such a manner that the immanentism latent in Cartesian Rationalism is not revealed in the concept of substance but in the relationship between the two substances. The third possible solution was sought in bringing Cartesian Rationalism into harmony with Aristotelian Scholasticism, and attempting to fill in the relationship between spirit and matter with the concept of potency flowing spontaneously into act according to a law pre-established by God. This law would also explain the relationship between the finite and the infinite. The monad of Leibniz is developed according to a pre-established harmony; its development is a passage or transition from a potential state to a state of representation. Despite these intrinsic deficiencies and notwithstanding the opposition which Cartesianism caused from its first appearance both in the field of philosophy (Gassendi, Hobbes) and in that of religion (both Catholic and Protestant), Cartesianism spread rapidly throughout Europe and represented the dominant thought of the period. It influenced all branches of culture. Catholic thinkers for example, those at noted centers like the Paris Oratory and the Benedictine abbey of Port-Royal, favored the supereminent position it gave to God and the soul. The Jansenist polemics which Cartesianism instigated are a proof of this; scientists liked the geometric spirit of the system; philosophers and litterateurs were pleased with the clear and distinct ideas and the spirit of criticism carried out according to rational methods. The classic land of Cartesianism, naturally, is France during its golden age of literature, the age of Louis XIV. Empiricism also developed along with Cartesian Rationalism, and felt its influence. Certainly Empiricism is opposed to Rationalism as sensitive and intellective knowledge are in opposition. Nevertheless, it felt the influence of Cartesianism, first in a negative sense, in so far as Empiricism now rose to reaffirm its premises in its debates with Rationalism (Hobbes, Locke); in a positive way it was also influenced in so far as the principle of immanence in common to both Empiricism and Rationalism. We may conclude that Cartesianism, directly or indirectly, is that predominating tendency in the philosophy of this period; it prepares the way for Illuminism, and through Illuminism it reaches Kant.
In The Radical Academy
Elsewhere On the Internet
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
|
|
Main Page & Index |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.