Throughout A Discourse on the Method, Descartes recounts his mission to reason his way to the truth to build a solid foundation for what he believes. Doing so leads him to taking apart areas of study themselves to see what they are truly made of and if they have sound reasoning. In one of these studies he contrasts mathematics and philosophy. Descartes deduces that mathematics has a surer foundation and is more applicable for life than philosophy.
Many believe that philosophy is more applicable for life. After all, philosophers are constantly writing about the different virtues, what they are, and the benefits of having them. However, as Descartes points out, none of them actually reveal how to obtain the virtues. So, upon examining philosophy, he realizes that it is simply “splendid and magnificent palaces built on nothing more than mud and sand,” and because it is all talk and provides no application, it is not “more worthy of esteem than anything else on earth” (9). The foundation of such a fine area falls apart because it has not been constructed on what truly counts--application for life--and instead it is mere talk. Additionally, what the pagan writers view as moral he concludes is actually “lack of human feeling, pride, despair, or parricide,” which are not the fine virtues the philosophers are praising and are not qualities worthy of exaltation. Therefore, philosophy neither teaches those who strive to gain virtue how to do so, and what it does extol is actually the moral opposite.
Conversely, when Descartes examines mathematics, he comes to the opposite conclusion. Although he admired it because of “its certainty and the incontrovertibility of its proofs,” he explains he did not see a point to math besides its use in areas like architecture (9). When he began to study it more in depth, however, he became surprised that something so well thought out and that has such a sure foundation is not more exalted. Whereas philosophy has a weak foundation and is simply talk, math has a true and good foundation with principles that are applicable for life. Mathematics has such a foundation because it is logical: there is no arguing with its proofs. Likewise, life is logical, a series of causes and effects, not random. If someone pushes a cart down a hill, it will roll, not float up into the sky. If it rains, it means evaporation has occurred. Math shows that there is order in the world that cannot be argued with. Its proofs are incontrovertible because the formulas and principles will not change, which makes it reliable. For example, one plus one will equal two and will never come to any other number. It is universally true everywhere; it is truth because truth cannot be disproven. Mathematics shows that truth is not subjective, but rather objective.
What good is knowing about a splendid area of study if it cannot be applied to one’s life? That is the problem Descartes has with philosophy and why he believes mathematics should be more exalted, because when both are examined down to their bones, mathematics holds firm while philosophy does not. If mathematics is beneficial to everyday life, then why do so many dislike it? Descartes writes that “imperfections are nearly all more bearable than change,” and then gives an analogy to traveling a well-worn path through a mountain over carving a new one. Humans are more prone to staying the way they are, even if it means hanging on to the non-beneficial habits over attempting to change because to do so is difficult. The reason, then, that there are those who do not like mathematics is because, since it is sound, logical, and true, it therefore creates better images of humans when followed because the principals it contains are being adopted. Those that like to make unreasonable arguments, for example, do not like it because it is showing them an area they need to change, but would rather not. Mathematics points out shortcomings because of its many strengths and the fact that it is true.
Math allows people to live orderly lives because the world is orderly and contains structure. This also shows a quality of God, for He created the world to be logical, as seen through mathematics, and since mathematics is truth, it then can be reasoned that God is orderly and truthful. Just as math is discernible because deductions can be made with it, God’s nature is discernible because of His handiwork in creation. If He had created the laws of nature and left the world to figure itself out, “all purely material things would have been able, in time, to make themselves into what we see them to be at present” because, since He gave the world an order, it would follow the nature of its creator (38). Nature would begin to follow the laws set in place because the inanimate, not being able to determine rules for itself, would fall into what is determined for it. Mathematics can help humans better understand the nature of God.
The method that Descartes is using to analyze reason leads him to picking apart the foundations of philosophy and mathematics. He discovers that, while the former is widely praised, it has no real basis for its claims of virtue, while on the other hand, the latter has a firm foundation and should be more widely praised because of the many applicable truths it possesses. Philosophy merely illustrates what virtues are and why they are so magnificent, never explaining how to attain such excellence. Math is true everywhere and cannot be disproven, and its principles makes humans into better versions of themselves and can also reveal attributes of God.
I would probably not impress Descartes very much since he greatly values one of the pursuits of which I am most scared: math. I would need to change much about myself to live a Descartian lifestyle such as taking more math and science classes, and learning logic and reason. Logic is such an important skill and can be applied to many pursuits such as politics. Breaking down the argument of politicians is crucial in discovering the validity and soundness of their arguments. Since Descartes seems to value practicality, politics is a good place to start. The government you grow up under has such an impact on the way you live your life and becoming knowledgeable and logical in approaching politics would set one up to see the problems in the government and try to fix them. Pretty practical.
ReplyDeleteHowever, philosophy has its place. In Consolation of Philosophy, Lady Philosophy actually spurs Boethius to productivity, and commands the muses who are allowing Boethius to wallow in his suffering to leave, saying, “Who has allowed yon play-acting wantons to approach this sick man?” (7). In a very logical manner, Lady Philosophy diagnoses and cures Boethius of his mental sickness, allowing him to live a healthier, more productive life. While logic encourages action, philosophy provides the necessary motivation.