Skip to main content

Good Advice from Descartes

    I'm still reading Descartes "Rules for Direction", found in volume 1 of "The Philosophical Works of Descartes", and came across this interesting quote. It struck me that this is great advice, not just for the philosopher, but for any person who wishes to learn anything: from how to repair a car to the most sublime and profound theological truth.
"We must principally beware of wasting our time in such cases by proceeding at random and unmethodically; for even though the solution can often be found without method, and by lucky people sometimes quicker, yet such procedure is likely to enfeeble the faculties and to make people accustomed to the trifling and the childish, so that for the future their minds will stick on the surface of things, incapable of penetrating beyond it."[1]
    I find that we are so often accustomed to seek knowledge in a random way that we never actually arrive at knowledge. This is most evident in the areas of Philosophy and Theology. People who advance without a method, and without any formal training, in these areas quite frequently end up with grains of truth amidst a forest of half truths, misinterpretations, and outright lies. They often make contradictory claims without realizing it, and look down upon anyone with a different thought (without having taken the time to truly examine this foreign idea). People who advance in this way hear something that they like, and uncritically accept it. They hear something that goes against what they have accepted, and uncritically reject it. They read a couple of books and are sure that they are now in possession of the unadulterated truth, when the reality is that they are only in possession of one side of the story. They do not think that it is important to receive formal training in these areas and often claim to be self-taught. The tendency of those who use such an approach is to think that they are bright lights of truth in a world of unenlightened people.
    In reality, having never taken the time to pursue the history of philosophy or the history of theology, they enter into the debate without having take the time to see what has already been said. It is as if, being at a diner party, one jumps into the middle of a conversation (often triggered by hearing a certain word), without having paid attention to what was already said. To do such a thing is normally seen as rude and inappropriate. It is the same with philosophy and theology. Much has already been said, and to truly join the discussion, one must take the time to catch up on what has already been said, who said it, and why. To do so is important so that one does not misinterpret anyone or go about making illicit claims.

    In both philosophy, and theology,. there are many systems of thought (or we could call them camps, or schools of thought). Though one need not, necessarily, be a part of any one school of thought (be it theological or philosophical), one should at least be aware of what a particular system teaches, and why it teaches it, before one begins criticizing it. Better than the joining any one camp, is the adoption of a certain method. In both theology and philosophy there have been many methods that have been advanced and used (Descartes method is one well-known method) throughout the ages. Different methods will give different results, and not all methods are equally valuable. Methods should not be determined prior to knowing what is being done; rather, the method will be determined by the subject in question. For example, you do not use a sword to go fishing, nor do you use a hammer to clean dishes. Our experience of the nature of the subject will determine the method that we use for advancing our knowledge of it (or our capacity to accomplish the desired end  - for example, clean dishes). This holds true for biblical interpretation, philosophical explorations, scientific experiments, historical research, archaeology, etc.

    [1]Rene Descartes, "Rules for the Direction of the Mind," in The Philosophical Works of Descartes, trans. by Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross (1911; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 1:31.

Popular posts from this blog

How Kant’s Synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism resulted in Agnosticism

Immanuel Kant, presented with the extreme empiricism of Hume and the extreme rationalism of Liebniz, which he discovered through the writings Wolff, sought to take a middle road between these two extreme philosophical positions. I would submit that Kant’s synthesis of these two views leads to an agnosticism about what Kant called “the thing-in-itself”, and ultimately to the philosophical positions known as Atheism, determinism, and nihilism.

Kant’s Sources
First of all, Kant was influenced by Hume’s empiricism and Newton’s physics. He saw that the physical sciences, in contrast to rationalistic metaphysics, were actually making advances. They were making discoveries, and building a system of knowledge that accurately described the world of our sense perceptions. Rationalistic metaphysics, on the other hand, was floundering amidst the combating systems that the philosophers were erecting. It did not provide new knowledge, and only led to unacceptable conclusions, such as the Absolute Mon…

A Short outline of Charles Taylor's: The Malaise of Modernity

            This is simply an outline of Taylor’s basic argument in this short work written by Charles Taylor. The idea of this outline is to help the reader understand the book by providing a simple outline of the basic argument that Taylor is presenting here. The book, which is essentially the manuscript is the fruit of a series of presentations that Taylor made at the Massey Conferences which are hosted by Massey College and Radio-Canada, is divided into 10 chapters. In the first chapter Taylor essentially proposes three causes (recognizing that there may be more) of the Malaise of Modernity: (1) Individualism or the Loss of Sense, (2) The Primacy of Instrumental Reason or the Loss of Ends, and (3) The effect on society and politics in general of the loss of sense to an inauthentic individualism and the domination of instrumental reason, or, the loss of true freedom. Taylor considers the first Malaise in chapters 2 to 8, the second in c…


Leisure: The Basis of Culture & the Philosophical Act. Josef Pieper. Translated by Alexander Dru. 1963. Reprint, Ignatius Press, 2009. 143 pp. $12.99. ISBN 978-1-58617-256-5.
            This book is composed of two articles written by the German philosopher Josef Pieper. Though the two articles are intimately connected, they form two distinct works; as such, this book review will begin by giving a brief introduction to the works in question, followed by and exposition of each of the works individually. The two articles that are included in this book, Leisure: the Basis of Culture and The Philosophical Act, were both published in 1947, and, as such, were written during the cultural crisis in Germany that followed the Second World War. Not only did Pieper have the cultural crisis in mind when he wrote these articles, but he was also writing in light of the works of the most well-known German philosopher of the time – Martin Heidegger. As such, any reader who is familiar with Heidegg…