Descartes reasoning received its major impetus from the same
mathematics as used by Galileo but extended further by a new and
original approach to mathematics. This was his own personal
contribution to science, analytic geometry. Even considering all
this, to an extent many would rather deny, modern science and
modern philosophy are both indebted to Descartes for his unique
method.
For those who do not have a strong mathematical background a few
words on this fascinating branch of mathematics might be in
order. Geometry, as we are all aware, deals with rules
concerning the forms of geometric figures. For example given a
triangle we immediately know certain things about it because of
its form. We know that it has three sides, and that the sum of
its interior angles total two right angles. We know these things
to be true because they are true of all triangles because of
their form. Analytic geometry goes a step farther. Through
analytic geometry any mathematical function can be pictured on a
graph using "Cartesian coordinates" as a geometric form and any
geometric form, once placed on a coordinate graph, can be
described by a mathematical function. These mathematical
functions can be manipulated according to standard mathematical
rules and the resultant can be shown as another geometric form.
The conclusion that must have been drawn by Descartes, though he
never mentioned it explicitly, was that all knowledge is thereby
interconnected. It is wrong, he said, to make the various
sciences different in the same way that we make the arts
different. By this he meant that flute playing and agriculture
require very different physical talents but the sciences of
physics, chemistry and optics do not require different
intellectual talents since they all are interconnected through
mathematics. In fact he believed that all knowledge was
interconnected through mathematical relationships and the entire
physical universe was interconnected through mechanical
relationships including the new laws of physical science being
developed by Galileo. But through his analytic geometry these
mechanical relationships, particularly when they can be expressed
mathematically through natural law, are translatable into
geometric forms which are then translatable back into
mathematical functions. Thus it was possible to interconnect all
knowledge.
If all this is true then it is obvious that in order for a person
to deduce all true knowledge, he need only find one indubitable
truth that could be known to be true on its own, not deduced from
some other truth. Once that truth was learned it was merely a
matter of logical and mathematical manipulation to prove out all
of the true knowledge that exists anywhere in the world. Thus
Descartes problem could be stated simply, he must locate that one
indubitable truth, one that cannot be denied regardless of the
circumstances. Once having obtained that truth one would have
the key that would unlock all knowledge. Remember that, like
Aquinas, he did not believe that reason could contradict
revelation thus the result of his efforts would be the sum total
of all religious as well as scientific truths.
The most famous scholastic philosopher of the late middle ages
was the Spanish Jesuit Francis Suarez. Descartes attended the
Jesuit academy and it has been said that he never went anywhere
without his Suarez tucked under his arm. Thus he was very
familiar with the system he was about to dismantle. Remember
that the Scholastic method was to begin with truths from the
bible, then move to the teachings of the church, and finally to
reason. In his system he was attempting to develop a route to
pure truth bypassing the first two steps.
Descartes' approach to the solution to this problem was to
develop a method, a procedure for directing the mind such that it
could lead eventually to an indubitable truth if such existed. As
you may recall, Aristotle said that there were two uses for
logic, dialectic and demonstration. Demonstration was arguing
from first principles and led to truth. Dialectic meant arguing
from opinions and led to persuasion. Descartes' personal revolt
was against the dialectical methods of the scholastics. It was
mathematics, he said in his discourse on method, that led to
demonstration and truth. In order to impress you on the
Aristotelian nature of this I would like you to remember that it
was a particular truth, an indubitable truth about something
existing, that he was searching for and not the kind of platonic
generalizations that the scholastics argued over. Only if it
dealt with some existing thing could he make that jump that later
Hume was to claim was impossible, from matters of fact to
relations of ideas, from the facts of existence to the form of
existence.
It is a matter of fact that no one would deny that there are
truths that, in our daily interactions with life we assume to be
true. But though we don't normally require indubitibility, we
nevertheless treat them as though they were true. It solves a
problem that Hume was to find in his own skepticism, once we
doubt of everything there is no return to truth. There must be
some criterion by which doubting could be rejected. This
criteria for Descartes became the concept of clear and distinct
ideas. Mathematical relationships were a good example. However,
it is also clear that mathematical truths, though indubitable,
will not secure the purpose Descartes was searching for, since
there exists no evidence that mathematical relationships refer
directly to existing things. What he needed for his fundamental
truth was a truth that dealt directly with existence.
To facilitate this search for truth Descartes set up a series of
"Rules for the Direction of the Mind." Originally there was to
be thirty six such rules. Three sets of twelve. However, he
completed only twenty one. We are primarily interested in only a
few which will demonstrated the change in thinking that he was
introducing into the world. The first we will examine is .
rule V.
|
Rule VI
In order to separate out what is quite simple from what is
complex, and to arrange these matters methodically, we
ought, in the case of every series in which we have deduced
certain facts the one from the other, to notice which fact
is simple, and to mark the interval, greater, less, or
equal, which separates all the others from this.
Although this proposition seems to teach nothing very new,
it contains, nevertheless, the chief secret of method, and
none in this whole treatise is of greater utility. for it
tells us that all facts can be arranged in certain series,
not indeed in the sense of some ontological genus such as
the categories employed by philosophers in their
classification, but in so far as certain truths can be known
from others; and thus, whenever a difficulty occurs we are
able at once to perceive whether it will be profitable to
examine certain others first, and which, and in what order.
|