Descartes’ influence on philosophy can be compared to the one exercised by Plato or Aristotle and, therefore, his nomination as father of Modern Philosophy is justified, not only because he re-elaborated metaphysics, or established a new epistemological inquiry, but also because he positioned the human individual in the centre of the philosophical sphere. The progress in sciences at that time, created the necessary ground for the re-evaluation of traditional matters. Descartes had a very broad range of interests, but his preoccupation with geometry, physics and medicine had a crucial impact upon his thought. The problems raised by Descartes, although not entirely original, opened up the perspectives of philosophy and shifted the direction of western thought. The criticism and fascination for Descartes are concentrated around two aspects of his philosophy: firstly, in the epistemological sense, Descartes elaborated the theory of methodical doubt, as a logical-mathematical method of inquiry; and secondly in a metaphysical sense, Descartes proposed the dualism of body and mind. Both his method of inquiry and his metaphysics have been subjects of debate, ever since their public apparition in the 17th century. Descartes is acclaimed for the turn from Scholasticism, restoring the authority of the philosopher, as a successful and capable individual thinker, without being restricted by tradition. We can compare Descartes’ reformation of philosophy to the one undertaken by Luther in Christian Reformation. If Protestantism was highly controversial, creating ground for rebellion and ultimately redefinition of faith, Descartes’ philosophical development produced an analogous revolution in philosophy. Largely through Descartes' influence, French philosophy has since maintained a humanist dimension. For hundreds of years, Descartes has influenced a series of thinkers concerned with human beings, such as the Enlightenment figures Diderot and Condorcet. At the present time, French philosophy is still divided among partisans of secular and religious humanism, who respectively understand human being in terms of itself or in terms of God. In France, religious humanists sometimes prefer Pascal to Descartes on the grounds that the former clearly subordinates man to God.[1]
We can divide Descartes’ followers into two groups: those who tried to develop and transform of his ideas into a more consistent philosophy and, secondly, those who rejected almost entirely his theories.[2] One can argue that his philosophy is not entirely fluent, but what cannot be denied is that the human individual has grounded its central position in western philosophy. Descartes attempts a simultaneous rediscovery of the human individual of the philosophy, but his project apparently failed, despite his optimism.[3] Although, Descartes himself has expressed dissatisfaction with the scholasticism, the Cartesian Philosophy consolidated later into monism, under the development of his followers Leibniz and Spinoza, manifesting thus itself as a new viewpoint with a long range perspective. There has been a permanent re-evaluation of Descartes’ thought and beginning with Hegel, Descartes’ contribution to the philosophy of consciousness has been acknowledged. Descartes continues to intrigue and fascinate and we repeatedly consult him when we attempt matters concerning the human nature, and in particular of the human mind. There have been numerous studies on Descartes and the contemporariness regards him in various ways, from sophistry[4] to inspirational. Descartes’ detachment from ossifying Scholasticism, his rejection of tradition and the establishment of a system of inquiry cannot overcome certain speculations and inconsistencies found in his work. In this essay I will try to contextually analyze the problem of interaction between mind and body, through the dual scope of history and philosophy, and particularly, I will question the originality of Descartes’ thought and the use of speculation in establishing the relationship between mind and body. In other words, I will try to show that Descartes could not entirely disconnect from previous knowledge, nor was he able to conceive a completely unexampled philosophy without recurring to tradition and speculation. My intention is not to list the problems of Cartesianism, but rather to analyze a few of them. Therefore, I will permanently introduce historical information regarding philosophical matters. We will initially look at the origins of Dualism, in very general terms, and then, at its appropriation by Descartes. The image of “the ideal city” will thematically follow us throughout this essay, participating in our liberation from contemporary prejudice concerning the understanding of Cartesian Dualism and, in the end, we will hopefully be able to establish whether or not Descartes’ ideas were original.
Descartes attempts the recreation of the philosophical system. This re-conception is possible only by putting a distance between a priori thought and himself. Descartes’ refutation of Scholasticism, substantiated into a solipsistic philosophy centered on the mind. His separation from tradition created the pathway for individual philosophical thought. Descartes broadened the horizons of philosophy by opening the gates for The Enlightenment.[7] He establishes, ab initio, an epistemological method of enquiry. In the beginning of The Discourse on the Method he explains that studying creates space for doubts, which he attended by developing a method of inquiry based on a mathematically rigorous algorithm, where the subject holds the power of wondering.[8] His constant preoccupation regards the mind and what can be known by the mind, used as instrument of deductive and mathematical reasoning. The importance of geometry and mathematics is suggested in his analogy to the ideal city. But, firstly, let us look at the symbolism of this ideal city. Descartes imagines philosophy as a city of thought. In the beginning of the second part of The Discourse on the Method, Descartes sets the ordered, individual thought in a favorable position to the traditional philosophy. “It is observable that the buildings which a single architect has planned and executed, are generally more elegant and commodious than those which several have attempted to improve, by making old walls serve for purposes for which they were not originally built. Thus also, those ancient cities which, from being at first only villages, have become ill-laid out compared with the regularity constructed towns which a professional architect has freely planned [..]”[9]
I suggest looking at the previous statement in a twofold way: philosophically and philologically - historically. Descartes not only analogizes the philosophy to a city, where ideas are mirrored to the constructions, but, at the same time, he proposes a superior method of inquiry, which is strictly connected to mathematics, physics and geometry. He compares philosophizing in a proper method to an ideal architectural plan. Architecture, as science, has its foundations on the basis of mathematical sciences. Descartes’ proposal that philosophizing should be conducted upon the mathematical way of inquiry, anticipates better and smoother results, than grounding our research on tradition. In this statement, he establishes the hierarchy of proficiency between the individual pursuit of knowledge and the collective one. The evolution of thought based on a priori knowledge is conceived as being ill-laid in comparison to an individual, but unitary process of philosophizing. The engineering of an individual is therefore preferable because of its unity, leading thus to a more comprehensible achievement. Mathematics, geometry and physics are essential in architecture and for Descartes this ideal architectural plan echoes, also, in building more reliable philosophical judgments. No matter how descriptively Descartes analogizes philosophy to architecture, and therefore the act of philosophizing to the act of elaboration of a new city, looking at this matter through the scope of Cartesianism, a paradox arises. This idea of mathematical inquiry contradicts his explanation of the manifestation of the mind. In his dualism, Descartes separates mind and body and he clearly states that body is an extension in space, thus obeying the laws of physics. Mind is, on the contrary, a thinking substance which has its own indefinite existence, completely detached from the material world and thus it is not inclined by these laws, i.e. laws of mathematics and physics. Reasoning, in Descartes’ conception, is an action of the mind. The question which arises here is: how is it possible to conduct our reasoning upon rules corresponding to the material world, when not only the essence of the mind, but all what mind comprises is connected to a different world, which does not appertain at all to the physical world?
Because the inquiry of Descartes is not purely philosophical, including at the same time some psychological features, I think we should look at Descartes in the context of his time. Regardless his determination to remain an outsider of the tradition and his volition to set about his solipsism, Descartes remains deeply connected to the ideas of the time, being unable to completely liberate himself from presupposition. Particularly, we will focus to the idea of the ideal city. The origins of this idea are found in Plato, who illustrates dialectically in Republica a series of moral norms applicable in the ideal society.[10] The long philosophical path to Descartes seems to be somehow interrupted by the adoption of similar ideas in the Christian Religion. During the Renaissance a revaluation of Antiquity had taken place. In the Christian tradition we recurrently come across the idea of a city of God. In philosophy, St. Augustine introduced the concept of the city of God.[11] Similarly, various artists had already painted ideal cities.[12] Leonardo da Vinci built even a maquette of the ideal city. Once an idea has breached its philosophical sphere, making its way towards some material accomplishment, thus penetrating the artistic sphere of painting and then, the more practical one of architecture, the possibility of materialization becomes imminent. The purpose of such a city is not solely connected to the aesthetic desire to construct a symmetrically appealing urbanization, but also to create the physical space for a society animated by a strong and good moral character. A contemporary to Descartes, Cardinal Richelieu, ascribed himself the task of building such a city. Its construction, in 1631, ex nihilo, respects the rigors of the classicism and Descartes as fervent catholic must have been acquainted with the plans of the French cardinal.
One who has visited the town is able to assimilate its rectilinear roads to the paths of reasoning. Descartes establishes in the 3rd part of The Discourse on the Method a set of moral rules[13] to be followed in the process of building the new epistemological system. In the second maxim Descartes says: “[..] not to adhere to less steadfastly to the most doubtful opinions, when once adopted, than if they had been highly certain; imitating in this example, of travelers who, when they have lost their way in a forest, ought not to wonder from side to side [..], but proceed constantly towards the same side in as straight line as possible, without changing their direction for slight reasons [..].”[14] Descartes emphasizes the importance of the rectilinear way of inquiry. We can analogize the attributes of inquiry found in this maxim to the characteristics of the ideal city: steadfastness and rectilinearity representing the basic features of the classicism. In this sense, Descartes is much connected to Scholasticism, taking over valuable elements of tradition and incorporating them into his more humanistic philosophy. Therefore, the ideal city becomes an artistic abstraction of thought. In the same way, the function of an idealized city is to provide the necessary ground to its dwellers, in order to achieve a perfected good character. Throughout the time the clutter of the suburbs was always associated to immorality, crime, poverty and sin, being thus contrasted, to the aesthetics and symmetry of the centre of a city. Aesthetics, hereby, should be understood not only as concept purely associated to the architecture, but also to the way of living of the inhabitants of the central regions, who are mainly concerned with activities related to science and humanities. Aesthetics’ symbolism in Descartes, can be translated into moral and moral can be further translated into mathematical. To continue our analogy, in Descartes, same as in the central markets of most of the cities, and at the same time as in all illustrations of ideal cities, God (and churches) occupies a central position.
In order to establish how these ideas diffuse into the Cartesian Dualism we need to release ourselves from the pre-judgments of the more contemporary conception of this dualism, i.e. the mind is the ghost in the machine.[15] Gilbert Ryle, “deliberately abusive”[16] names this doctrine of Cartesian dualism absurd. Although I am by far not a devotee to Descartes, I think that Ryle misunderstood and therefore misinterpreted the essence of Cartesian Dualism and for this reason, Descartes deserves to be rehabilitated. I believe that the origin of this misunderstanding resides in the conceptualization of such ideas in terms of inner and outer and the abusive multiplication and division of mind. Ryle conceives that the body is the siege of the mind.[17] This interpretation would bring Cartesian Dualism to the similar position of Gnosticism, by situating the soul in the prison of the body. Using Ryle’s own terms describing Descartes’ dualism[18], I daresay that the former’s interpretation of the latter is a mistake. The understanding Descartes through Rylean scope is both restricted and false. Ryle fails to understand the fundamental features of the mind in Descartes, which is that the mind is indivisible. In order to establish the origin of Ryle’s cardinal error, we have to review Descartes’ understanding of mind.
Descartes ontological split into corporeal (res extensa) and respectively, into the non-corporeal thinking substance (res cogitans) allows us to study each of these individually, without the need of focusing our attention on their interaction.[19] Therefore, we can characterize res cogitans (thinking substance, mind) with rather accessible epithets: indefinite, indivisible, un-extended in space, metaphysical. Descartes establishes the constitutive attribute of res cogitans (thinking substance) as being “the thought”[20]. The thought can be also regarded as “becoming aware”. Becoming aware is in fact, the manner in which we access the mind. The mind is conceived as being a universal indefinite and independent substance, which has everlasting existence.[21]
Cartesian Dualism does not imply the absence of interaction between mind and body. These two entities exist independently, but, nevertheless they are connected. Gilbert Ryle in his book The Concept of Mind, seems to ignore this fact and constructs his entire criticism of Descartes on the hypothesis of multiple minds residing in multiple bodies. Elisabeth of Bohemia had a similar difficulty in understanding the interaction of the two substances and questioned Descartes about the manner of how these two entities interact[22]. To this question, Descartes failed to give an evident answer at that time. Later on, he introduced a rather physio-psychological explanation, stating that there is a metaphysical interaction between the two, regulated by a physical organ within our brain. I believe that Descartes himself had difficulties in explaining the metaphysical processes concerning the mind by physical means (because the mind cannot be evaluated within the sphere of physical sciences).[23] In order to understand this interaction between mind and body we need to report ourselves repeatedly to analogies extracted from the material world, which, as Descartes said, are not applicable to metaphysics, i.e. mind. In order to offer an explanation, Descartes emphasizes these differences by deepening the contrasts between mind and body. The thinking substance, as we have already seen, is indefinite, indivisible and non-corporeal. In opposition, the body is finite and divisible. Gilbert Ryle misconceives the mind as being the sum of individual minds, whereas Descartes emphasizes the unity of the mind, and, therefore, in Descartes’ ontology, each individual consists of a body connected via the pineal gland to a unitary mind. To make this statement more clear, I need to hijack[24] the English expression “head in the clouds”. Let us thus imagine this expression detached from its traditional significance, and reassign a new symbolism for each word composing it. The cloud would symbolize the mind: ethereal, untouchable, non-material. The head would be the cognate for each individual body. The mind exists at the exterior of our body but it interferes with some parts of our body, namely with the pineal gland, in the same way in which some radiation would do. The pineal gland has, in Descartes, the function of modulating the frequencies of the mind with the purpose of intelligible rendition. Whether the pineal gland has a dual nature, physical and metaphysical, is a matter of speculation. We may seem thus somehow suspended in a cloud of mind-radiation, where the thought has the role of transforming agent of the minds’ obscure regions into intelligible and understandable knowledge. The understanding of the mind takes place gradually, by augmenting the degree of awareness, and this awareness occurs only a posteriori to the act of thought. Thus, the mind is not encapsulated in the body, as Gilbert Ryle conceives it (the ghost in the machine), nor as a seed in fruit, but interferes with the body. Some human individual is composed of a body and only shares a part of a universal, ethereal indefinite mind. The introduction of “the pineal gland” does look like a last moment solution, a very speculative deus ex machina, with not much philosophical support, but explains at least empirically, the interaction between these two substances. The pineal gland played an important role in Descartes' account because it was involved in sensation, imagination, memory and causation of bodily movements. Unfortunately, some of Descartes' basic anatomical and physiological assumptions were totally mistaken, not only by our standards, but also in light of what was already known in his time. It is important to keep this in mind, for otherwise, his account cannot be understood.[25] We are unable to separate, in this case, Descartes from presumption or speculation and, nevertheless, we are unable to eliminate some of his famous inconsistencies, i.e. the interaction between mind and body. Furthermore, this empirical introduction of the concepts regarding the function of the pineal gland in Descartes’ philosophy contradicts his own scheme of Methodical Doubt. In the Principles of Philosophy, Descartes writes about the imperious need to consider false, even doubtful matters: “It will even prove useful, once we have doubted these things, to consider them as false, so that our discovery of what is more certain and easy to know may be all the clearer.”[26] In other words, speculation can lead us to greater disappointments or greater error. In addition, referring to the empirical inquiry, based on observation, Descartes warns about the deceiving character of the sense-perception: “The first reason for such doubts is that from the time we have caught out the senses when they were in error, and it is prudent never to place too much trust in those who have deceived us even once”.[27] In conclusion, the problem of interaction between mind and body is not left unresolved as Gilbert Ryle or Lilli Alanen[28] claims. The problem here is one of epistemological concern: Descartes offers an explanation, but the manner in which knowledge became support for his explanation contradicts his postulates in Principles of Philosophy.
Returning to the maxim of the rectilinear path and to the concept of the ideal city presented in the Discourse on the Method I will try to compare the idea of radiant mind to the one of the ideal city, mainly because I believe there is a relationship between the two and that Descartes does more than analogize randomly attributes of the method of inquiry to a plastic abstraction. Although the mind is indefinite and indivisible, it does not possess the attributes of God, therefore, it lacks perfection. To establish a hierarchy based on these attributes, we may place the body (the corporeal) on the most inferior level, followed above by the mind and on the top resides a perfect God[29]. Similarly, we can imagine another hierarchy which can be analogized to Aristotle’s classification of living creatures.[30] On the lower level Descartes places animals (automata), which are purely corporeal creatures, preprogrammed machines which are virtuously engineered to simulate the inclinations of the soul and mind.[31] At a higher level, humans distinguish themselves from animals by the dualism of body and mind. And again, on the highest position we meet again God.
Once we have surpassed the limits of animal kingdom, thus being endowed with mind and soul, we advance on this hierarchic classification. As social beings, our perfective agent is the society. Descartes claims to reject this traditional point of view and focuses on the individual perfection. Nevertheless, in The Discourse on the Method, he continues to mirror the individual thought to the spirit of the society. The purpose of human existence is the one of self-perfection through reasoning. Although he claims his separation from tradition, the model of individual inquiry is based upon the model of some social virtues. The ideal city does not only presuppose a perfected architectural planning, but at the same time, an idealized version of the citizen. Descartes is not preoccupied with the ethical aspects of this matter, but with the ethics presupposed by the ideal city upon which he intends to build his method of inquiry. He adapts the ethical structure to the epistemological method. He moves from the social to the individual, providing himself with social regulations at a very personal level. The ideal city is thus an ethological reference in developing his method, or, in other terms how we should conduct the behavior of mind in order to achieve successful philosophical results.
As we have already seen, Descartes employs pre-knowledge in constructing his philosophical ideas. His point of view is thus not entirely original and oscillates between prejudgment and speculation. In addition to the matters extracted by Descartes from tradition and the ones subscribing rather to speculation and empiricism, the theistic arguments for the use of a priori knowledge are evident in his thought and they have been repeatedly criticized. However, these considerations will not become the object of study in this essay. Descartes, despite the original dualistic view of the man, remains, as we all do, deeply connected to a priori philosophy, even though the sources of thought are not referenced throughout his writings and he denies any participation of pre-knowledge: this method of proof, says Descartes, "shows the true way by means of which the thing in question was discovered methodically and as it were a priori."[32]
[2] Descartes dualism was eventually eclipsed by the monist ideas of Spinoza and Leibniz. Samuel Clarke was thoroughly critical and Hegel, although critical, revived the problems posed by Descartes in connection with consciousness. A more radical criticism of Descartes appeared in Gilbert Ryle’s Concept of Mind, in 1949.
[3] Descartes courageous pursuit for a new philosophy was interrupted by his death. Bertrand Russell’s states in The History of Western Philosophy that Descartes believed that he could be able to extend his life span above 100 years.
[4] Redpath, P.A. 1994. Cartesian Nightmare. An introduction to transcendental sophistry. Rodolfi Editions. Amsterdam-Atlanta.
[5] Anaxagoras. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The use of the corporeal here seems to be anachronic, Anaxagoras does not employ such a concept. However, I want to correlate the concept of mind to the one of nous. In Anaxagoras, as we can see later in Descartes, appears the idea of dualism of the mind and corporeal things. In Descartes the corporeal is conceived as an extension in space, enduring thus the law of physics, whereas in Anaxagoras the material is composed of infinity and a multitude of principles, all participating into the mix. I imagine this “homoeomerous” substances as atoms, same as in the atomism of Democritus. The same idea of divisibility is present also in Descartes. The mind, as in Descartes, is separated from the corporeal and it does not participate into the mix, therefore it is independent. Descartes says that there is interaction between the two, whereas in Anaxagoras the idea of mutual determination is absent. However, mind is the principle of movement and it can act upon the corporeal, to such an extent that it is not inclined by the reaction of the material. “Nous is the original agent which sets in motion the process which gives rise to our present world.”(Drew Hyland - The Origins of Philosophy, pg. 270).
[7] There is a link between Descartes idea to pursuit for truth using our own minds and the later Kant’s manifesto for liberation from the prison of tradition as seen in the short essay ”Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?”
[8]Rene Descartes - Discourse on the Method, Electronic Classics series, University of Pennsylvania, pg. 5 : “But as soon as I finished the entire course of study, at the close of which it is customary to be admitted into the order of the learned, I completely changed my opinion. For I found myself involved in so many doubts and errors, that I was convinced I have advanced no further in all my attempts at learning […] I was thus led to take the liberty of judging of all other men by myself, and concluding of that there as no science in existence that was of such a nature as I had been previously given to believe.”
[12] The illustration of ideal cities began with painters like Luciano Laurana (or Pietro della Francesca)…
[17] Idem 15, pg. 13: “Material objects are situated in a common field, known as ‘space’, and what happens to one body in one part of the space is mechanically connected with what happens to other bodies in other parts of space. But mental happenings occur in insulated fields, known as ‘minds’, and there is, apart maybe from telepathy, no direct causal connection between what happens in one mind and what happens in another.”
[18] Idem 13, pg. 15: “I hope to prove that it [Descartes’ dualism of mind and body] is entirely false, and not in detail, but in principle. It is not merely an assemblage of particular mistakes. It is one big mistake and a mistake of a special kind”.
[19] Descartes, R. 1984. The Philosophical Writings Of Descartes. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 215 - 216 [63 - 65]
[23] I believe that it is impossible to explain metaphysical matters fully via empirical examination.
[24] By hijacking, I intent to give an artificial but symbolic interpretation of traditional understanding of the expression “head in the clouds”.
[28] Alanen, Lilli. 1996. Reconsidering Descartes’s Notion of the Mind-Body Union. Synthese 106. Pg. 4. “Descartes, in his early writings on man, made us look like a “gost-in-the-machine” analogy. Thus, in giving his first crude accounts of the interaction between the rational soul and the body, he compares the body to a mechanically working statue of earth, the movements of which are controlled and regulated by the immaterial soul”.
[32] Timmermans, B. The Originality of Descartes's Conception of Analysis as Discovery. 1999. Journal of the History of Ideas. Vol. 60. Nr 3.
