Descartes View of Human Nature: Strengths and Flaws

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Body of the paper
Conclusion
References

Abstract

In this paper, I elaborate on what can be considered the main strengths and weaknesses of Descartes view of human nature. Among this views foremost weaknesses is named the fact that it is based upon the philosophers belief in the existence of God. The views main strength, on the other hand, is identified its overall progressive sounding.

Introduction

One of the reasons why Rene Descartes is being commonly referred to as one of the great Western philosophers, is that his works contain a number of valuable insights into how ones individuality comes into being. Partially, this can be explained by the fact that Descartes view of human nature is indeed logically sound. At the same time, however, many of the philosophers suggestions, as to why people can hardly be considered perfect beings, no longer present much of a philosophical value. The reason for this is that, in light of recent scientific discoveries, many of these suggestions appear outdated. In my paper, I will explore the validity of this suggestion at length, while elaborating on what should be considered the strengths and weaknesses of Descartes assessment of what human nature is all about.

Body of the paper

In essence, the philosophers view of human nature can be outlined as follows:

The main indication of peoples existence being thoroughly objective, is that they are capable of reflecting upon it consciously. Because ones consciousness is non-material, this necessarily means that it can be best described in terms of a Gods gift. Consequently, this can also be seen as the main proof that God does in fact exist, I so manifestly conclude that God also exists, and that all my existence, from one moment to the next, depends on him [Meditations (39)].

This, however, creates a certain inconsistency if God is perfect (omnipresent), than all his creations (deeds) must be perfect, as well. Yet, as we are all well aware of, this is far from being the actual case every particular individual simply cannot help remaining imperfect in one way or another. Descartes, however, refers to this as yet another proof of Gods existence, because peoples tendency to make mistakes implies their endowment with the unlimited freedom to make free choices. In this respect, humans are being not much different from the God himself, It is only the will, or freedom of choice, that I experience in myself as so great that I can form the idea of none greater& I understand that I bear a certain image and likeness of God [Meditations (41)].

According to the philosopher, peoples imperfection derives out of the fact that, despite being endowed with the unlimited willpower, their understanding of how the universe actually works is severely limited. Therefore, while addressing life-challenges, people are bound to make mistakes, Since the range of the will is greater than that of the intellect& it easily falls away from the true and the good, and this is both how I come to be deceived and how I come to sin [Meditations (42)]. This, of course, implies that, while striving to attain a greater degree of perfection, one may never cease being aware of what account for his or her intellectual limitations.

In my opinion, the main weakness of the philosophers view of human nature, is that it is based upon his assumption that God does in fact exist. However, upon being subjected to a closer examination, such his assumption will appear utterly erroneous. For example, the philosopher deduces the existence of God, in regards to the fact that he is being capable of understanding of what the notion of divinity stands for, in the first place. As he pointed out, When I consider that I doubt, or that I am an incomplete and dependent thing, so clear and distinct an idea of an independent and complete being (that is, God) comes to my mind [Meditations (39)].

However, it never occurred to the author that the very notion of completeness (omnipotence), which he discusses in close conjunction with the idea of God, presupposes the impossibility for the universe to function in the way to which we are accustomed. The reason for this is simple if God did in fact create the universe, it would have been reflective of his miraculous (unpredictable) ways. That is, it would be possible for the material objects in this world to be simultaneously both: existent and non-existent.

It would also be possible to reverse the effects of the laws of nature on the surrounding reality. For example, one would be able to bring the glass of water to a boiling point by the mean of keeping it in the deep freezer for some time. Yet, as we are well aware of, the mentioned possibilities simply do not exist, which in turn implies that there is in fact no omnipresent God at least in the Cartesian (associated with Descartes) sense of this word. The reason why many people consider their belief in God thoroughly natural, is that it empowers them psychologically, which in turn increases the chance of their physical survival within the hostile social/natural environment pure and simple.

Another important shortcoming of Descartes line of argumentation, in regards to what he believed contributes to the making of human nature, as we know it, is that according to the philosopher, ones ability to operate with abstract categories, is best discussed in terms of a thing in itself. That is, ones consciousness exists independently of the concerned individuals body and that, in order for just about anyone to be able to make valid judgements about the surrounding reality, he or she would have to remain thoroughly unaffected by it.

As the philosopher pointed out, I have grown so accustomed to withdrawing my mind from the senses& that I can now direct my thought without any difficulty away from things that can be imagined and towards those that are purely intelligible, and detached from all matter [Meditations (39)].

However, such philosophers stance can hardly be deemed fully justified. The reason for this is that, as todays neurologists are being well aware of, a persons consciousness (soul) is the property of his or her body and not the other way around. The validity of this statement can be shown, in relation to the fact that, contrary to how Descartes refers to it in his Fourth meditation, the quality of ones conscious mind (soul) can be irreversibly altered by the external intrusions into this persons brain.

The practice of lobotomy exemplifies the soundness of this idea perfectly well. After all, it does not represent any secret to surgeons that it is indeed thoroughly possible to make just about anyone instantly oblivious of happened to be his or her self-identity, for example. In order to achieve this effect, one would simply have to remove the part of the concerned individuals cerebral cortex (brain). What it means, is that it is not only that ones soul cannot exist outside of his or her body, but also that, contrary to what Descartes used to believe, there is nothing undividable about it. In other words, our consciousness is just another instrument, deployed by our bodies on their way of trying to survive, and that there are no innate qualities to it. The main implication of this is clear there are no good reasons to believe that the conscious (rational) way of thinking is necessarily virtuous. It is understood, of course, that this suggestion stands in a striking contradiction with the main idea of the Fourth meditation.

Nevertheless, even though that, as it was shown earlier, Descartes view of human nature does not quite correlate with what todays scientists know about what causes people to act in one way or another, it cannot be considered completely misleading. After all, throughout the Chapters entirety, the philosopher does come up with many legitimate observations, as to what prevents people from being able to achieve the state of perfection. For example, according to Descartes, I am so constituted as a medium term between God and nothingness, or between the supreme being and non-being [Meditations (40)].

Even though that the quoted idea does contain a reference to God, it nevertheless can be best described as being fully consistent with what contemporary scientists know about the phenomena of organic life. The reason for this is that, as of today, it became a commonplace practice among many of them to adopt an instrumental outlook on what happened to be the actual significance of peoples existence. As Dawkins pointed out, We are survival machines robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes (1976, p. 2).

In other words, in the eyes of evolution, the actual worth of just about anyone is not being reflective of what happened to be the concerned individuals educational attainment, or his/her contribution to the communitys well-being, but solely of how effective this person happened to be in making babies. After having succeeded in preserving its bloodline, a person naturally begins to be deemed useless by nature, which in turn sets him or her on the path of aging and consequently dying. Thus, just as Descartes noted, people can indeed be referred to as being partially non-existent. After all, when assessed in conjunction with the term eternity, ones average lifespan of 60-80 years appears extremely short-lived.

The Chapters yet another strength is concerned with the fact that in it, Descartes proved himself insightful enough to present readers with the scientifically sound explanation, as to why imperfection remains the essential part of human nature. According to the philosopher, We should not look at any one single creature in isolation, but at the whole universe of things, whenever we are inquiring whether Gods works are perfect [Meditations (41)].

In order for us to be able to able to understand the actual significance of this Descartes statement, we would need to assess it from the evolutionary perspective, which in turn will require the replacement of the word God with the word nature. The main reason why neither of the organic forms of life (including people) can be considered perfect, is that just about every living creature on this planet is mortal. Nevertheless, when we adopt a broader view on the issue, it will become apparent that the mortality of organic life is fully justified, as the main condition for it to continue becoming ever more complex. The logic behind this suggestion is that, without being mortal, living creatures would not be affected by genetic mutations.

The latter, however, is the main driving force of evolution. It is because the organic forms of life never cease being subjected to these mutations, that they are able to adjust to the continually changing conditions of the surrounding natural environment. In other words, if it was not up to death, there would be no life. What it means is that, in full accordance with how Descartes perceived it, ones limitations, as a human, cannot be thought of as the indication of the overall poor design of humans. Thus, even though there are many strongly defined religious overtones to the above-quoted suggestion, on the part of Descartes, it nevertheless cannot be referred to as anything else, but being utterly enlightening.

The philosopher should also be given a credit for having implicitly pointed out that, contrary to what many people continue to believe, it is not his or her endowment with the faith-based morality, which makes one a human. Rather, it is the concerned individuals ability to apply a continual effort into acquiring more knowledge about the universe, on one hand, and using this knowledge to its own advantage, on the other. As Descartes noted, I realize that& (my humanness) depend on two simultaneously operative causes, namely, the faculty I possess of acquiring knowledge and the faculty of choosing, or free will [Meditations (40)].

It is understood, of course, that as for the first half of the 17^th century, this idea sounded rather revolutionary. Thus, even though that throughout the Chapter, Descartes never stops praising God, as the ultimate cause behind all effects, he does it in such a manner that, in the aftermath of having been exposed to the Fourth meditation, one will naturally be tempted to conclude that it is namely nature, which should be referred to as God.

Therefore, it will not be too much of an exaggeration to suggest that, despite the fact that it is indeed somewhat outdated; the intellectual legacy of Descartes will continue being appreciated well into the future. The reason for this is that it contributed rather substantially towards triggering the process of intellectual liberation in Europe, which in turn made possible the continuation of the social, cultural, and scientific progress in the West.

Conclusion

I believe that the earlier provided line of argumentation, in regards to what should be defined as the main strengths and weaknesses of Descartes view of human nature, is fully consistent with the papers initial thesis. Apparently, this view is indeed somewhat controversial, because while revolving around the notion of God, it is in fact concerned with addressing the issue of human imperfection, as something that is being prearranged by the impersonal laws of nature.

At the same time, however, it radiates the strong spirit of humanism and tolerance while promoting the idea that it is thoroughly natural for people to make mistakes, Descartes naturally prompts readers to reconsider the appropriateness of judging others, on the account of their sinful ways. This once again implies that there is nothing incidental about the fact that even today; the philosophy of Descartes continues to be considered intellectually enlightening.

References

Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Descartes, R. (1993). Meditations on first philosophy. 3^rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Click Here To Order Now!