Descartes’
most famous statement is Cogito ergo sum,”
I think, therefore I exist.” With this argument, he proposes that the very act
of thinking offers a proof of individual human existence. Because thoughts must
have a source, there must be an “I” that exists to do the thinking.
In
arguments that follow from this premise, he points out that although he can be
sure of nothing else about the existence he can’t prove beyond a doubt that he
has hands or hair or a body, he is certain that he has thoughts and the ability
to use reason. He asserts that these facts come to him as “clear and distinct
perceptions”. He argues that anything that can be observed through clear and
distinct perceptions is part of the essence of what is observed. Thought and
reason, because they are clearly perceived, must be the essence of humanity.
Consequently,
he says that a human would still be a human without hands or a face. He also
says that other things that are not human may have hair, hands, or faces but a
human would not be a human without reason, and only humans possess the ability
to reason. He firmly believed that true knowledge can be directly gleaned not
from books but only through the methodical application of reason. Because he
believed that every human possesses the ‘natural light’ of reason, he believed
that if presented all his arguments as logical trains of thought, then anyone
could understand them and nobody could help but be swayed.
Kant:
The
first thing to observe is that Kant explicitly says that reason is the arbiter
of truth in all judgments. He says that it is necessary for the law of reason
to seek unity, since without it we would
have no reason, and without that, no coherent use of the understanding, and
lacking that, no sufficient mark of empirical truth.”
Spinoza:
His
earliest statement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) appears in his
first published work, the 1663 geometrical exposition of Descartes’ principles
of philosophy. The book states ‘Nothing exists of which it cannot be asked,
what is the cause or reason/ why it exists.
Since
existing is something positive, we cannot say that it has nothing as its cause,
therefore we must assign some positive cause, or reason, why a thing exists,
either an external me that is me outside the thing itself, or an internal one,
me comprehended in the nature and definition of the existing thing itself.
Spinoza’s
insistence that even the non- existence of things can be explainable is
crucial. It allows him, for example, to argue that were God not to exist, his
non- existence must be explainable. Since God is a substance, he argues his
existence or non- existence cannot be caused or explained externally. Hence,
were God not to exist, he would have to be the cause of his non- existence,
just as a square, circle is the cause of its non- existence. But since God is
not a contradictory entity, He cannot internally rule His own existence, and
hence He must exist.
Leibniz:
If
there were two indiscernible individuals, then God would have acted for no
reason to treat them differently. But there is a reason for everything. So,
there are no indiscernible yet numerically distinct things.
He
who says there is no need of reason has a reason behind it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
·
Copleston, Fredrick. “A History of Philosophy.” Modern
philosophy, Vol 4, Descartes to Leibnez, New York : Doubelday and Company,
Inc., 1960.
·
Gilson, Etienne
and Langan, Thomas. “A History of Philosophy.” Descartes
toKant, New York: The colonial press Inc., 1963.
·
Spinoza, Benedict. “The Collected works of Spinoza.” Vol.
I, Translated and edited by Edwin Curley, Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1985.
No comments:
Post a Comment