Hot Topics: Perhaps Descartes Was Right After All
Who knew?
It is day 281 out here, at Philosophy Going Wild. It’s cold outside, I am tired, sitting by the fire as I write. Sometimes, I feel quite alone, but then one of my dogs gets up and sits on the tail end of my winter dressing gown.
I am busier with teaching than I thought I would be and my ventures into the incomplete history of philosophy, aimed at uncovering important types of, and partners in, conversations canonical philosophers have had, make me think: Perhaps Descartes was right after all …
Not like you think.
Not with his cogito (which wasn’t his idea, really).
Not with his mind-body-dualism either. (Note that that whole conundrum that kept generations of philosophers busy had perhaps been settled in a letter by Descartes to Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia that was lost afterwards; perhaps. If not, the fact that the two decided to drop the issue that I, for one, find rather counter-intuitive to posit in the first place, might suggest that it wasn’t the most important tenet to go on about; just might.)
And I certainly do not think that he was right with his outlandish views on animals. (I am still undecided: Does the fact that Descartes had a dog himself, Monsieur Grat, strike a serious blow to my plans for an animal-informed philosophy? Or does it just mean you need a bigger dog? A more disagreeable dog? Or just a human with a more agreeable and bigger soul? Who knows.)
All that aside, Descartes, I think, might have been right with his views about how much philosophy is good for you.
I am excited to share this nugget with you because I frankly just did not know that that central figure of modern philosophy actually thought we shouldn’t think too much too hard. You don’t believe me? Here is what he has to say to the young Elisabeth who is at that point still unwilling to let go of the argument she is having with Descartes:
I am almost afraid that your Highness will think I am not speaking seriously, which would be contrary to the respect that I owe her and would never fail to render to her. But I can say with truth that the principal rule which I have always observed in my studies and the rule I have used most in acquiring any knowledge at all has been to devote only a very few hours a day to thoughts which use imagination, and only a few hours a year for thinking which uses pure understanding. I have given all the rest of my time to the relaxation of the senses and repose for the spirit. I include in exercises of the imagination even all serious conversation and anything that requires close attention. This is why I retired to the country. (Descartes, Letter to Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, 28th of June 1643)
Voilà. That’s it. I am packing my bags. My dogs are wagging their tails in delight because, with their eternal and radiant souls, they are completely capable of reading my mind. I see you all for a few hours next year. Should you need me before, you can find me relaxing in the countryside. Perhaps I will have a bit of time left for a chat if I haven’t used up my daily contingent of the imagination. Big if!
No, seriously. I think I get it. Less is more.
Arguably, that view might change if you change what you think philosophy is meant to do for you. For Descartes, it was just to provide the foundations for the sciences which were meant to be put on a stable footing to go on and do more good for humans. Sometimes, this conversation between philosophy and the (other) sciences needs to be continued, but on the whole, once you got those fundamentals right, you are just fine.
This is not the only function you can assign to philosophy though. People have considered philosophy to be a conversation among friends since ancient times. They have considered it a conversation you have with yourself, confession style. Or a conversation with god! Or, why not, to be best practiced in conversation with your dog, or cat.
As much as I love (thinking with) my dogs, I have always had a deep respect for philosophers of a somewhat instrumental bent. I remember how passionately I agreed with classical pragmatists and their constant movement from doubt to belief, doubt to belief, but really doubt, not those Cartesian “paper doubts” (Peirce) … and how much delight I took in Midgley’s idea that philosophy is like plumbing. Something so vital, surely, needs to pervade the whole of life.
Today, I am not so sure anymore. Perhaps that’s down to my dogs. Perhaps I am getting old. Perhaps I am going feral. But I wonder. (I actually wonder more than I doubt.) Perhaps an honorable function lies in creating and maintaining that hiatus between thought and action.
I can’t believe I am saying that. This will bite me in the bum like an angry Monsieur Grat. I am starting to feel like a pumpkin, made from glass.
But I will take a leaf out of Descartes’ playbook and do less philosophy and less overall here in the New Year. There will be a break after the 23rd of December and, starting from the 13th of January, I will post every two to three weeks. It would mean a lot to me if you stayed tuned and if this change of mind and tremor to philosophical core beliefs has confused you, please do spring into action and join me for tomorrow’s live with Greg McElwain, when we will be doing some vitally important conceptual inspection, at least as far as mixed communities are concerned.
