Part two of Descartes' Discourse primarily deals with explaining the actual method that he feels should be used when trying to logically examine anything, and divides the process into four steps.
His first step is, in my opinion, his most important one - which is essentially to be skeptical of all things. He says that when arriving to conclusions, one should "never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such". In other words, don't believe anything without sufficient backing - question everything. He emphasizes the need to be able to "exclude all ground of doubt". If there is even one anomaly, then according to Descartes, it is not a truth.
The other three rules deal with splitting the problem into smaller, more manageable parts, figuring out the easiest parts first, and finally producing a detailed and complete report (I felt like this was more common sense type stuff, whereas the first rule was more of a critique on ignorance and blind acceptance).
The greatest part about this seemingly simple method is that it is so broad and general, that it can be applied almost universally, anything from science to politics to history, etc.
One viewpoint that I disagreed with Descartes on was his suggestion that an isolated mind produced better results than collaborative efforts. He says, comparing it to architecture - "there is not usually so much perfection in works composed of several parts and produced by various different craftsmen as in the works of one man." To me, the saying 'two heads are better than one' holds more water than his argument. He says that multiple people tend to cloud each other's vision and judgment, but I would argue that perhaps many or all of those people would not have arrived at the correct judgment on their own, but instead by working together and bouncing ideas off one another.
In fact, Descartes goes on to contradict his own statement when he uses Sparta as an example. He says, "I believe that if one time Sparta was very flourishing, this was not because each of its laws in particular was good (seeing that some were very strange and contrary to good morals) but because they were devised by a single man and hence all tended to the same end". In essence, he is saying that, even though Sparta lived in a cruel, martial society, it was for the better because one man thought it up. This is why I think that his argument for the sole mind is flawed - what happens when that mind belongs to a despot, or worse?
1 comment:
I also disagree with his idea of an isolated mind being more efficient. I personally work more efficiently when I am alone, but it is only because the projects I accept to work on require an indivial point of view. But when it comes to understanding truth, and having a basis where one must cast away all doubt, then a person needs other minds to show them that doubt exists. No one person can ever understand all other people, and this creates a conundrum when deciding to work together or alone. Either way can be beneficial and detrimental, it depends on what the goal of the task is. Two heads are better than one when the two are looking for similar things, and that is difficult to establish. And I agree with your comment about Sparta, and not only will the outcome become a question if a tyrant comes to power, but like Hanlon's Razor suggests: Never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by ignorance, no one person knows the desires and even the needs of anyone else.
Post a Comment