CHAPTER-II. Ontological and Epistemological Issues in the Philosophy of Rene Descartes

Transcription

1 CHAPTER-II Ontological and Epistemological Issues in the Philosophy of Rene Descartes

2 2.01 Introduction In this chapter, we shall expound and examine the ontological and epistemological issues in Rene Descartes. Ontology can be properly expounded on the basis of epistemology. We therefore regard Descartes' ontology to be closely related to his epistemology. We shall expound Descartes' dualism in relation to his rationalism. Our proposal is to find out the issues, both at the centre and at the Margins of Descartes' philosophy. We would like to develop the issues like the method of doubt, emergence of 'Cogito', existence of God, existence of external world, rationality in terms of clearness and distinctness. mathematical method, innate ideas etc. which are at the centre as well as the issues like dream, deception, demon, illusion, fantacy and madness which are at the margins of Descartes' philosophy. With the analysis of Central and marginal issues, we will examine the shortcomings in the theory of dualism (Body and Mind). We shall also expound that there is a definite method that is the method of doubt which is closely related to Descartes' 'dualism' as well as to his rationalism. In order to get clarity and precision, we have divided this chapter into two parts, the first is what is at the centre and the second is what is at the margin in Descartes philosophy. 44

3 2.02 Ontology and Epistemology Though we have mentioned that ontology can be properly expounded on the basis of epistemology, we would like to develop the basic concept of ontology and epistemology. Generally ontology means the doctrine of existence or a system of speculative universal definition of being. We can say that it is a special part of metaphysics, the doctrine or supersensous, non-material structure of everything existing. Ontology, Dr. R.P. Singh, defines "Ontology may be defined as a branch or philosophy which deals with the theory of being, for example, the theory of what really exists in contrast with what only seems to exist, of what permanently and unconditionally exists 111 contrast with what exists temporarily, conditionally and dependently. An enquiry concernmg Ontology shows that it has two ma1l1 trends; namely, idealist and materialist. The former claims that Spirit is the fundamental source of existence, sustenance and 45

4 dissolution of the entities. The latter regards matter as the primary source of all entities". 1 Epistemology means a theory of knowledge. The central issue of epistemology is the nature and derivation of knowledge, the formation of knowledge and its reliability with knowledge. In what follows, we shall proceed to examine Central issues in Descartes philosophy. PART I 2.03 Cartesian Method: In Discourse on Method Part - II Descartes says: (I) "To accept nothing for true, which is not clearly known to be such, that is, which is not presented to the mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all doubt; Singh R.P., Kant and Hegel Methodology, Ontology Epistemology. Dialectic and Ought, (Galaxy Publications, New Delhi, 1990), p.l. 46

5 (2) To divide every difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be required for its adequate solution. (3) To conduct one's thought in an orderly manner so as to begin with objects, the simplest and easiest to understand and to ascend from them, step by step to the knowledge of the more and more complex things, assigning in thought a certain order over to those things which, in their own nature, do not seem to stand in any relation to one another. (4) To make enumerations so complete and review so comprehensive as to be assured that nothing has been omitted".2 Descartes observed these four methodological rules strictly. The first we come to know that he advises not to believe anything which is not clearly and distinctly perceived. Secondly we can divide into many 2 Descartes Rene, vide Discourse on method, Part II, Para VI, Trans. by John Veitch. 47

6 parts to get clear and distinct idea. Thirdly Descartes clearly explains about the deductive method because he wanted to take later steps, which should be clearly deducible from earlier ones and finally the complex things may be understood when we know several constituent factors separately, clearly and distinctly. The first is the philosophical attitude of Descartes whereas according to Kalkin "The remaining three correspond respectively to the thrice recognised processes called - analysis, synthesis and verification") This is known as carters ian rationalism. Descartes has over thrown the existing opinion in ordcr to establish a firm and concrete foundation. Descartes was in a hurry to present a theory or truth and its immutable natures'. In the above passage Descartes had developed some sorts of method for free enquiry. As Descartes says"... we have sometimes seen people make mistakes in such matters and accept as most certain and self-evident things which seemed false to us. Secondly, the most importantly, we have been told that there is an omnipotent God also created us. Now we do not know whether he may have wish to make us beings of the sort who are always deceived even in those matters 3 Kalkin, Persistent Problems of Philosophy, p

7 which seem to us supremely evident..... ".4 The initial doubt in Descartes was sense perception and imagination. 'Search for truth' is the central theme of Descartes methodical enquiry. Descartes has accepted these methodological rules for a free enquiry and validity of reason. One should thoroughly examines the happenings of life and in this respect Descartes says "Since,we began life as infants, and made various judgements concerning the things that can be perceived by the senses before we had the full use of our reason, these arc many preconceived opinions that keep us from knowledge of the truth".) It seems that, one should doubt everything once in course of his life to get rid of confused knowledge. The beginning of the meditations raises a clear cut question regarding the objective of Cartesian doubt. The main objective behind Cartesian doubt is to get rid of all his earlier belief which not curtained indubitable. Descartes' cheaf interest on the meditation is to introduce certain scientific foundation. Descartes treatments of his method, 4 5 Descartes Rene, Selected Philosophical Writings. Robert Smooth Murdoch, at VillA 1988, p.161. Ibid., off, Dugald

8 the soul, God have an important relevance to his conception of universal science. Descartes said "philosophy gives us the means of speaking plausibly about any subject and of winning the other sciences bring honors and riches to those who cultivate them... But there still no point lphilosophy J which is not disputed and hence doubtful and as for the other science, in so far as they borrow their principle from philosophy [... J nothing could have been built upon such Shaky foundation.,,6 It shows a great amount of dissatisfaction in Descartes. Descartes enquires into the secure foundations for human knowledge, material universe, relation between mind and matter, all placed in the heart of every philosophical system. Descartes in a search to outl ine a model for all human knowledge and a self-evident intution. Descartes says "I came to see that he exclusive concern of mathematics is with questions of order or method, and that it is irrelevant whether the measure in question involves numbers, shapes, stars, sounds, or any other object whatsoever. This made me realize 6 Des Rene, Philosophical writing of Descarte etc. p.l,45. 50

9 that there must be a general sciences which explains all the points that can be raised concerning order and measure irrespective of subject matter) Descartes enquiry regarding systematic knowledge is not a terminological innovation rather an epistemological revolution. He has tried to generate a unified system of reliable knowledge. His mind intention of this system should develop from the human mind itself In his word "I shali bring to light the true riches of our souls, opening up to each of us the means where by we can tind, within ourselves, without any help li'om anyone else, all the knowledge we may need for the conduct of life, and the means of using it in order to acquire all the most abstruse items of knowledge that human reason is capable of possessing. 8 -, All the philosophy of Descartes, begins with a systematic exercise of doubt. All the preconceived opinion, unscrutinized pre-supposition has been clear out by his method of verification. Descartes was very much worried about the uncertain state of philosophy. Descartes said 7 Ibid., Ibid.,

10 "philosophy was cultivated for many centuries by the least minds that had ever lived and there was yet not a single proposition in it which was not under dispute".lj I-Iowever "Descartes did not despair of knowledge and knowledge too for him must attain a certitude equal to that of the '. demonstration of Ari thmatics and Geometry". I () Being a great mathematician of his time he realised that in mathematics, there are few axioms which are certain and the whole mathematics and geometry is based on it. So he attempted to bring a similar method in philosophy also. In other words Descartes started doubting to find at least one axiom which will not be in dispute and on which the whole philosophy can be based upon. However he wanted a foundation of certainty from where has to start. Descartes mam objective has remained to obtain a method through which one leads towards certainty Descartes Rene, Discourse on Method in Philosophical Works of Descartes, Trans, E.S. Holdne & Geross (Dover Edition 1931), pp Ibid., p.s. 52

11 Before going into details about Descartes notion of doubting we will like to mention here that when we study Descartes book Meditation on jirst philosophy we find Descartes has taken mind/body dualism as the last step in his system but in the course of our analysis we will argue, inspite of the above mentioned Descartes' claim, he has actually given a logical priority of mind over body. In our view it is not doubting rather it is dualism which is the first step in his philosophy. On the other hand Descartes has claimed that his method is a deductive one. But actually we will prove how Descartes method is not only deductive but also inductive. So now we will analyse the Cartesian doubt. Descartes started doubting everything. He even doubted sense testimony like the thing of our everyday life like table, chair, etc. Descartes states "Some years ago I was struck by the large number of falsehoods that I had accepted as true in my childhood, and by the highly doubtful nature of the whole edifice that I had subsequently based on them. I realised that it was necessary, once in the course of my life, to demolish 53

12 everything completely and start agall1 right from the foundations if I wanted to establish anything at all in the science that was stable and likely to last". 1 I However Descartes also says "what ever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once".12 I-Ie also comes to such an extent that he doubts the truth of science and mathematics. At this stage he objected to the truths of mathematical science like 2+2=4. He claims that there might be a demon at once who might lead us to believe in falsehood. In the words of Descartes "1 will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all II Descartes Rene, Mediations on first philo;ophy Trans. By John Cottingham, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p Ibid.,p

13 his energies in order to deceive me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgment".13 Descartes' doubt can't be confused with psychological doubt. Psychological doubt is not goal oriented, it is independent of our will but Descartes' doubt aims to find out something certain. Descartes firmly believes when doubt is pushed to its further limit then it will reveal something which is indubitable and which is clearly perceived. In order to tind out an axiom of truth Descartes also doubted the existence of self. Descartes says "that I am here, sitting by the fire, wearing a winter dressing gown, holding this piece of paper in my hands, and so on. Again how could it be denied that these hands or this whole body are mine? Unless perhaps I were to liken myself to madmen, whose brains are so damaged by the persistent vapours of melancholia that they firmly 13 Ibid., p.is. 55

14 maintain they are kings when they are paupers or say they arc dressed in purple when they arc nakcd".14 So Descartes' doubt was not a skeptic rather the possibility of true knowledge. However Cartesian doubt is only a starting point to find out that which can't be further doubted actually and possibly Cogito_Ergo Sum and its Importance: Arter doubting everything finally he found that he may doubt anything but he cannot doubt that he is doubting'. There is something which cannot be doubted any more, whether it may be dream or real consciousness. Descartes claims that' I must exist as a doubting being in order to doubt. I-lence I doubt or think therefore I exist that is Cogito ergo sum'. This is the truth which may be taken as the foundation of philosophy. "Cogito-ergo Sum' means 'I think therefore I am' and it became the first principle from which the whole philosophy started". Descartes says "so after considering everything very thoroughly, I must 14 Ibid.,p

15 tinally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind".is One important thing which we would like to mention here is that 1Il Descartes' axiom 'I think therefore 1 am' 'I' docs not refer to any socio-concrete historical being rather to pure mind. In the words of Descartes "At present I am not admitting anything except what is necessarily true. I am then in the strict sense only a thing that thinks: that is, I am a mind of intelligcnce, or intellect, or reason - words whose meaning I have been ignorant until now. But for all that I am a thing which is real and which truly exists. But what kind of a thing? As I have just said a thinking thing".16 So 'I' refers to in the words of Descartes a thinking thing not to the body or concrete human beings. So it is clear from the above quotation of Descartes' the first axiom' Cogito' refers to intelligence or 15 Ibid., p Ibid.,p

16 intellect or mind and this being the first axiom, Descartes attempts to draw everything from this, even the existence of external world and body, which we will prove in the course of our chapter, Descartes has given a clear logical priority to mind over body and we will bring out in the course of our analysis, that this logical priority of mind over body was further carried by Berkeley and Hume and finally found itself in the rejection of pure subjectivism by Jacques Derrida. Now let us see the other aspect of the Cogito. For Descartes the certainty of Cog ito is clear and distinct and he argued that what is clear and distinct is true. So the criterion of truth is derived from this clearness and distinctness of Cogito. So only Cogito becomes the touch stone of the criteria for all further knowledge. Cogito appears as the central and unproblematic to Descartes' philosophy. The emergence of this Cogito is more evident, more reliable which produce a light of reason in Descartes. Descartes in his writing says "when it operates on its own is less liable to go wrong than when it anxiously strives to follow numerous different rules, the inventions of S8

17 human ingenuity and idleness, which severe more to corrupt it than to render it more perfect. 17 CogifO is placed in the core of Descartes' philosophy CogifO presupposes a knowledge of certainty which grounded in reason. This development of Descartes occupies a pivotal role, known as modern scientific methodology. Descartes presents the knowledge of general principle pre-supposed by Cogito. Soon after having the status of Cog ito as first principle. he says "I consider in general what is required for a proposition to be true and certain; for, since I had just found one which I knew to be such, I thought that I should also know in what this certitude consists. And having remarked that - there is nothing at all in this: I think therefore I am, that assumes me that I speak the truth, except that I see very clearly that to think it is necessary to be: I judged that I would take it as a general rule, that things we conceive very clearly and very distinctly are all true... " 18 Descartes accepts a general rule of truth in Cogito. This is one of the major presentation of Descartes philosophy. Descartes concluding 17 Ibid., Philosophical Writings of Descartes, etc., pp.1 0 I-I

18 onc's existence on the basis of Cog ito and its clearness and distinctness. Cogito produce a rational systems to examine and to discard. By this. Descartes has grasped very well to the Ilwdern scientilic concept. I n the second meditations Descartes hint~d that clear and distinct idea as a thinking thing. Descartes also explicitly maintenance the indubility of his own existence. Clear and distinct idea is one of the important and necessary criteria for truth Criteria of ti'uth (Clearness and Distinctness) The First Meditation cnds on a note of apparently universal doubt. In the Second Meditation Descartes writes "[ existed without doubt, by the t~lct that I was persuaded. or indeed by the mere fact that I thought at all but there is some deceiver both very powerful and cunning, who constantly uses all his wiles to deceive me. There is therefore no doubt that I exist 'If he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he likes, he can never cause me to be nothing. So long as I think I am something, so that after having scrupulously examined everything, one 60

19 must then, 111 conclusion, take as assumed that the proposition; I am, I exist, is necessarily true, every time express it or conceive of it in my mind".il) So 'I think therefore I am' becomes the llrst premise beyond all sorts of doubt and Descartes tries to deduce the certainty of everything from this Cogito. He holds that clearness and distinctness is the criterion of certainty, and anything which is clear and distinct as Cogito is certain. Descartes got worried about the first self-evident axiom, 'Cogito ergo sum' means the very self of doubter, whose existence is so clearly and distinctly perceived. Hence for Descartes the clearness and distinctness becomes the criterion of truth. Thinking alone is the sel f- existence of being. The second important thing is its consciousness. Now Cogito is true because it is clear and distinct, mathematical propositions are true because these are clear and distinct, and geometrical deductions are true because these are clear and distinct, therefore what is clear and distinct are true. This clearness and 19 Descartes Rene, Discourse on method and meditation Trans.. by sutcliffe (Penguin Books 1979). P

20 distinctness has become the criterion or truth. Anything which IS as clear and distinct as CogilO must be true Proves for the existence of God: After analysing Descartes' understanding about the certainty of self we would like to explain about the God. Descartes establishes the self which is the most fundamental certainty and all other certainties are based upon it. Descartes led this certainty of the self not to the truth of the material world but to the certainty of an absolute being, infinite being, namely, God. The perfect certainties of the material world can be followed from God. Hence Descartes has followed the order of certainties as Ooubt-Self-God-material world and each leading on, successive to each other. Descartes has given two arguments to prove the existence of God. The Ontological and the causal arguments are formulated to prove the existence of God. The Ontological proofs for the existence of God is based on two assumptions namely (i) individual consciollsness knows itself to be 62

21 linite and (ii) This consciousness of 'God' is derived only ti-om the conception of an absolutely perfect being. Descartes says "so there remall1s only the idea of God; and I must consider whether there is anything in the idea which could not have originated in myself. By the word 'God' I understand a substance that is infinite eternal, immutable, independent, supremely intelligent supremely powerful, and which created both mysel f and everything else that exist".20 We can trace back the Ontological proof for the existence of God of Descartes to medieval St. Anselm ( ), when he argues from an idea of a perfect being to the existence of such a being. Descartes argues in the same manner: 1 clearly see that existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than can it having its three angles equal to two right angles be separated from the essence of a (rectilinear) triangle. 20 Descartes, the philosophical works, Trans. by F.S. Haldane and R.T. Rose (London, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), p

22 Existence being a perfection, can no more be separated from the concept or a triangle just as three angles equal to two right angle presuppose the existence of a triangle. Similarly perfect being (God) must by detinition exist. In the causal argument for the existence of God Descartes argues that he finds the idea of God in his mind as the most perfect, all wise, infinite and omnipotent being. But from where this idea has come to him? To him his idea has a cause, the cause must be at least as great as the effect. Hence he can't be the cause of his idea, the cause must be not less than a perfect being, God. On the othcrhand if there is no God then how can he derive his existence? It may be that he derive his existence from himself or from his parents and the tinal cause must be God External World Descartes has proved the certainty of the self and God but now the problem is that how he has arrived at the certainty of the external world.!-low to prove that the material things which are perceived by our senses are real? How to prove their reality? Descartes deduces this 64

23 certainty, this reality of the external objects, from the veracity of God. With the existence of Cogilo and its clearness and distinctness, and existence of God' Descartes goes to establish the existence of external world. Except the idea of God and self he doubts the reality of the external world of things. But now the problem is how to arrive at the certainty of the external world; whether the material things which we perceive by our senses are real or not'? I f they are real then how can we prove their reality? But Descartes has cited the proves for the certainty of the external world from the principle of veracity of God. Let us develop the proofs laid down by Descartes, for the certainty of external world. Descartes' adventitious ideas which are quite independent of our will, can see that there are some ideas which are depending on our own mental constitution like the idea of colour, smell, sound, etc. even the idea of size, distance, position, weight, etc. vary from person to person and therefore it is purely relative. But out of all these we find some which are invariable and constant like the idea of Extension. In other words when we think about the external world we can think about the extension of length, breadth, and thickness as the essential qualities. In this context Descartes says 65

24 --... that we have an irresistible tendency to bel ieve in the existence of a substance whose fundamental attribute or essence is extension")l We have the clear and distinct idea about the existence of extension and this idea of extension has an objective validity. This validity leads the truth for existence of external world and the material things. Thus Descartes says "In the lirst place, then, it cannot be doubted that every perception we have comes to us from some object different f~r.r",."" r"ll......';.'f~ l-~,"",r;. ;('.,r,,1 :., "11... n""'ltc..r tr... roqllc'i::a. r'll... c,~lf a. '-... A. '--'''-' ,... 6'"...'...'"... "... _.. ",,,-,... "... _ ",-",_.. ",_a, the perception being entirely dependent on the object which effect our senses." It may, indeed, be matter of enquiry whether that be the object or something different from objects; but because we perceive, or, rather stimulated by sense clearly and distinctly apprehended, certain matter extended in length, breadth and thickness, the various parts of which have different figures and 21 Descartes Rene - Meditation VI. 66

25 posilions, and give rise to the sensations we have of colours, smells, pains etc., God would without question, deserve to be regarded as a deceiver, if he directly and of this extended matter, or merely caused it to be presented to LIS by some object which possessed neither extension, figure or motion. For we clearly conceive this matter as entirely distinct from God and from ourselves, or our mind: and appear even clearly to discern that the idea of it is formed in LIS on occasion of objects existing out of our minds, to which it is in every respect similar. But since God cannot deceive us, for this is repugnant to his nature, as has been already remarked, we must unhesitatingly conclude that there exist a certain object extended in length, breadth, and thickness, and possessing all those properties which we clearly apprehend to belong to what is extended. And this extended substance is what we call body or matter Ibid., para 8. 67

26 I t is clear from the: above passage: that God has given us very strong inclination to believe that the above said ideas arise ii om corporeal objects. The idea about the external world is to correspond only through the veracity of God. And we must conclude that corporeal objects must exist. With the philosophical foundation of materialism or the existence of corporal world, Descartes claims that natural sciences are essentially materialistic in nature. This position got its philosophical basis in (ialilee's and Newton's mechanics Dualism of Descartes Most or thc important aspect is that mind can exist unextended or it can exist without body is the central to this argument. Descartes has defined two important things in First Meditation and Sixth Meditation that first he thinks therefore he exists", and secondly he has a clear and distinct perception to think which is unextended. And mind is an incorporeal substance which is really distinct from body. In the above distinction between the two substances as Descartes says here constitutes its nature or essence. Descartes says. 68

27 "Since I know that anything that I clearly and distinctly understand can be brought about by God just as I understand it, it is sufficient that I can clearly and distinctly understand are thing without another in order for me to be certain that one is different from the other, since they can be placed apart at least by God. And it does not matter by what power that happens, in order for them to be regarded as different. Consequently, from the vary fact that I know that exist and that at the same time I notice nothing else at all to pertain to my nature or essence, except that I am a thinking thing. I conclude correctly that my essence consists tiling, I conclude correctly that my essence consists in this one thing, that I am a thinking thing. And although perhaps (or rather, as I will soon say, certainly) I have a body, which is very closely joined to me, nevertheless because I have on one hand a clear and distinct idea of myself in so far as I am only a thinking, not an extended thing, and on the other hand a distinct idea of body in so far as it is only an extended thing, not thinking 69

28 it is certain that I am really distinct from my body and can exist without it. 23 The essence of mind is thought and that of body is extension. Hence it is clear that mind is totally devoid of body and there is nothing common between them. In Meditation six Descartes told that 'I have on the one hand a clear and distinct idea of myself in so far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, on the other hand I possess a distinct idea or body in so hlr as it is only an extended thing. [-lence it is certain that my mind, through which I am what I am. is entirely and truly distinct ii'om my body and my exist without it")4 It is clear from the above passage that two substances (mind & body) entirely exclude each other and this situation of Descartes is a dualistic and it constitutes the defining feature of modernism. Thus mind is clearly different from body. In a letter a Princess Elizabeth Descartes mentioned that 23 Descartes Rene, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes.fohn, Cottingham Robert Stook Off, P.M. Trans, Vol II, p.54. CUP, Descartes Rene - Meditation - VI, Ibid., p.8. 70

29 "Now it would follow from this that there can be no union or interaction between two since two mutually independent and essentially opposed substances cannot - interpenetrate each other; mind cannot cause changes in the body, nor can the latter in the former. It is clear that we cannot conceive body and mind without thought and extension. And undoubtedly one can trace the distinction between the two substances.2 5 I r mind and body as Descartes says are two different substances how is it possible that they can interact with each other. This remains a problematic in modern European philosophy. Descartes was aware of this problem and in the Sixth Meditation he says "Nature also teaches me by these feelings of pain, hunger, thirst - etc., that - I am - not only lodged in my body, like a pilot in his ship, but, besides that I am joined to it very closely and indeed so compounded and intermingled with 25 Descartes' Letter to Princess Elizabeth and his reply to her objection, pp I

30 1m'. body. - that I form. as it were. a sin \.de whole with it. ~ For, if this were not so, when my body is hurt, I would not on that account feel pain, I who am only a thinking thing, but I should perceive the wound by my understanding alone, just as a pilot sees with his eyes if any damage occurs to his ship and when my body needs to drink or eat, I would know this simply without being warmed of it by the confused feelings of hunger and thirst. For in truth all these feelings of hunger, thirst, pain etc., are nothing other than certain confused ways of thinking which arise from and depend on the union and it were, the mingling of the mind and the body")6 It is hard to understand how such distinct and incompatible substances can interact. Descartes' own researches on the brain led him to locate the seat in the pineal gland. As mind is unextended and this interaction takes place only at some unextended point somewhere in the body which Descartes called pineal gland. However, this formulation of the mind and body is quite inadequate. Inspite of all these statements 26 Ibid., p

31 reoarding the relation between body and mind Descartes leaves a lacuna b in his system, regarding the mystery of this 'intermingling' of mind and body The estimate of Descartes Despite this short coming, Descartes has made certain significant contribution to modern philosophy as such Dr. R.P. Singh in the context of Descartes says "Descartes has made four significant contributions to modern European philosophy. First the most influential and provoking aspect of Cartesian metaphysics consists in the theory about thc human mind and its distinction from the body. Every philosophical systcm after Lkscartes has attempted to overcome Descartes absolute division between the mental and the physical. The second important contribution was in the field of epistemology with the characteristic method of doubt. The basic thrust behind the method of doubt consists In the central conception that physical phenomena must ultimately be reducible to quantifiable treatment by means of mathematical laws, and that there is material substance underlying individual material things 73

32 and events and the fourth significant contribution of Descartes consists in his concepts of God as the absolute substance".2 7 Though Descartes has claimed that the 'dualism' is the last step we have found it as first step. By doubting Descartes has given the thinking process which is reason. On the basis of this reason the structuralist like Michael Foucault and post-structuralist like Jacques Derrida have debated heatedly. 'I' is the intellect or reason. 'Dualism' from which two schools of thought emerged like materialism and idealism. With the dualism Descartes gives rise to human subjectivity and rationality on the one hand and the claims for the scientific knowledge on the other. The Cogito, and the clearness and distinctness represent human subjectivity and rationality respectively and material things in terms of primary and secondary qualities occupying space and time are the scientific foundations. His attempt to introduce science and mathematical method to philosophy was designed to make philosophy meaningful. Descartes is one of the system builders who believed in the capacity of reason to know all things. 27 Singh R.P., Philosophy: Modern and Post-/J1odern, New Delhi, Intellectual Publishing House, 1997, p

33 2.10 Malicious demon These are the issues at the centre or Descartes' philosophy. And the issues like dream, illusion, fantasy and madness are at the margins. Descartes statement 'I do not know whether I am aware or dreaming'? "I do not know whether the senses are deceiving me or not" and demon is capable of hooting with laughter because it is the utmost cunning fellow who always deceives, \vhether it is dream or it never happens. But actually deception is something which is mistaken easily for something else misleading, ctc. In Descartes fifteenth objection he explains about deception that "for God has given me no faculty at all for recognizing this Iviz. whether ideas are emitted by bodies or notj on the contrary, he has given me a great propensity to believe that they are produced by corporeal things. I do not see how God could be understood to be anything but a deceiver if the ideas were transmitted from a source other than corporeal things. It follows that corporeal thing exist. The standard view is that doctors are not at fault if they deceive their patients for their health's sake, and that father's are not at fault if they deceive their children for their own good. Descartes should thus 75

34 consider the proposition 'God can in no case deceive us' and see whether it is universally true and in its reply. "My conclusion does not require that we can in no ease be deceive indeed, I have reading admitted that we are often deceived). All that, I require is that we are not deceived un cases where our going wrong would suggest an intention to deceive as the part of God; for it is self contradictory that God should have such an intention. Once more my opponent's reasoning is invalid")8 Its epistemological crisis figures in illusion. madness, dreams and we will clari t'y in our forthcoming chapter. In order to explain his dreaming argument Descartes says that there IS a difference between the waking and dreaming stage. To elaborate this distinction Descartes says " so what is left to say? Can one raise the objection I put to myself a while ago, that I may be dreaming, or that everything which I am now thinking has as little truth as what comes to the mind of one who is asleep? Yet even 28 Descartes Rene Method alld meditation, etc. p

35 this does not change anything. For even though I might be dreaming, if there is anything which is evident to my intellect, thus it is wholly true."29 But the objection regarding this one is " Hence the images we have when we are awake and having sensations are not accidents that inhere in external objects, and are no proofs that any such external object exists as all")o And in order to give the replies to above objection Descartes says "what arc these utterly certain matters? I f things which arc ridiculous or absurd sometimes appear certain, even utterly certain, to people who are asleep or insane, then why should not things which are certain even utterly certain, appear false and doubtful? I know a man who once, even falling asleep heard the clock strike four and counted the stories as, one, one, one; it then seemed to him that there was something absurd about 29 Descartes Rene, Method and Meditation ROBERT STOOTH, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988, p Ibid., Objection and Replies, p

36 this, and he shouted out; that clock must be going mad: it has struck one o'clock four times! Is there really anything? So absurd or irrational that it could not come into the mind of the same one who is sleeping or raving.,,31 But in the debate between Derrida and Foucault regarding the above dreaming statement of Descartes leads a new role which we will develop in our coming chaptel 2.10a Illusion In illusion, Descartes explains as the lacksity regarding the radical destabilize position of a subject, illusion is something mental, interior, intellectual condition, it is not restricted to any external sensory conditions of the subject. In illusion we can not distinguish something I ike reason from madness and sleeping from waking stage. It is possessing an ambiguous nature, what is in Descartes searching for truth. And Derrida has taken this to his method and stabilise it through these definitions. Madness is a part and percale of the mind. But the dream argument of Descartes is more radical than madness. Descartes in 31 Ibid., Meditation VI, p

37 his argument mentioned 'the very similitude the dream hypothesis'. But Derrida de1ines it differently in his study of Descartes. We will examine all these aspects on our coming chapter. Meanwhile we shall expound the marginal issues like deception demon, etc. In the First Meditation Descartes has introduced the concept of demon "malicious demon' as an utmost power having deceiving qualities. He deceives all the way in dreaming and leads an linaglllary freedom in sleeping. Descartes said, "I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgment. I shall consider myself as not having hands or eyes, or flesh, and blood or senses, but as falsely believing that I have all these things. 79

38 I shall stubbornly and firmlv persists 111 this meditation: and even if it is not In my power to know IS resolutely guard against assenting to any falsehoods, so that the deceiver, however, powerful and cunning he will be unable to impose on me in the slightest degree")2 [n order to arrive at certainty Descartes doubted and put every thing as delusion for the time being. But who leads this delusion if every thing is so firm and concrete? In fact Descartes has used this very term in his thought process only. 2.10b Conclusion Descartes doubt was hyperbolic and his doubt in deception cited 111 new consequences. As per Descartes says "Descartes' passage from skeptical doubt about sensory evidence to hyperbolic or "baroque" doubt, which involves the possibility of total deception, brings with it important consequences. Hyperbolic doubt is "Metaphysical" in so far as it involves both the possible order of the world and that of reason and truth as well. The universal nature of this doubt is sustained by the 32 Descartes Rene, Descartes selected Philosophical Writings, etc., p.is. 80

39 totalizing and excessive nature of the hyperbole, that IS by a rhetorical tigure")3 Dalia Judovitz elaborates this point further: "Descartes distinction between madness and reason emerges as the index of an effort to constitute through difference a new epistemological grounded principle of reason. The exclusion of madness, and later dreams, and their subsequent displacement of hyperbolic doubt corrcsponds to the break with the paradigms of the previous baroque allegorical tradition. This tradition, as we previously suggested IS characterized by the problematization of representation, so that there can be no concept of interpretation establishing 1ixed distinction between one representation or another: between dreams and the world, reality and illusion")4 Generally these illusion, madness, mallicious demon, dreams, are placed in an epistemological crisis by Descartes. He has given a vary Judovitz Dalia, Subjectivity and Representation in Descartes, The Origin of Modernity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988, p.149. Ibid., p.1 81

40 marginal place when concerning Descartes. Descartes used dream argument as a model for doubt which lcads to greater or more and more doubts. He also considers dream as a composite and real Imagll1ary elements. The issues are placed in margins in Descartes philosophy and we will develop the implication of above said issues in our fourth chapter concerning Descartes as a critique of Den ida. To bring this chapter to a close we can say that there are two fundamental issues in Descartes' philosophy central and the marginal. The ontological and Epistemological issucs in Descartes OCCUplCS the central place in his philosophy. The Dualism between mind and body - the application of mathematics to philosophy, the clear and distinct ideas and thc existence of God occupy the central place in Descartes' philosophical system. At the same time there are marginal issues like dream, madness, illusion, fantasy, demon, etc. which are not much developed in Descartes philosophy. These are the issues on which Derrida has attempted to elaborate his philosophy. We will develop these issues in detail in the fourth chapter of our thesis. 82