Discourse on Method: Facts with Fallacies

Due to its subjective nature, philosophy is a highly disputed study. For this reason, it is difficult to prove or disprove a specific philosophical principle, as there is invariably another person that will challenge those claims, giving his own evidence. The same is true with Rene Descartes' Discourse On Method. This work divulges some thoughts that were-and still are in some cases-avant garde ideas. Descartes tries to prove the existence of God, as well as shed some light on other philosophical principles; his explanations are elaborate, yet riddled with fallacies.

Descartes was primarily a self-made philosopher. He was highly educated in Europe, studying ancient texts, fables, history, oratory, poetry, mathematics, morality, theology, philosophy, and other sciences, but ultimately decided to quit formal schooling. His reasoning was that he had learned "nothing but an awareness of his own ignorance." Despite the promise of an enlightened mind through vast levels of education, Descartes was disappointed in the lack of results, thus decided to abandon books and travel the world to experience human nature first-hand. However, Descartes found even his travels to be an unrevealing endeavor in the grand scheme of things. Instead, he decided to look inward and find answers about humanity within himself, trusting his own reason to reveal truths.

On November 10, 1619, Descartes barricaded himself inside his room to avoid a winter storm. During this time, the only thing he had to occupy his time was his mind. It was then that he uncovered several of his philosophies on human beings. His first such revelation was that every human being shares an equal amount of reason and that some people use that reason in different ways, which is what gives them the appearance of variety. This is possible, he continues, because God created all people with a common image, each person with equal components. It is reasonable that God would create a species based on a template (in this case, equal amounts of reason); Descartes also says that humans are "rational animals," creatures with differences in "accidental" properties (physical traits), but common form. Since we are equally human, we must be equally rational. It may be a rather large assumption, but Descartes has a valid point; reason is not an emotion or an ability, but rather an innate characteristic. It is unlikely that God would intentionally create individuals with inferior inherent traits, as they are not reflective of one's personality (which does differ from person to person), but rather one's ability to function as a human being.

Descartes also concluded that accomplishments of individuals are more perfect than those of groups. For example, a city constructed with the vision of one man is superior to one pieced together by several different people. Descartes is seemingly correct in this case, as uniformity and consistency would indeed produce a more effective city. However, he hurts his case with his next example: laws that come from a single mind are superior to ones that evolve gradually over time. The most effective laws are the ones that are scrutinized over time and adapted based on the effectiveness (or lack thereof). Often times, a law that appears reasonable will have unforeseen ramifications in the near or distant future. One man (as Descartes prefers) cannot predict the exact outcome of a newly instated law and its ultimate effect on society. The law must be instated, then revised based on the products of that law. Descartes attempts to defend his position by citing God's law as an example. The laws set by God are flawless to the pious members of society, and were cultivated by one individual. However, that is not a valid example, because God is not a mortal human being with flaws and personal biases. The omnipotent God has the ability to foresee the outcomes of laws, thus would not need to have anyone revise them.

The opinions of Descartes were carefully and precisely arrived upon. At one point in his life, he decided to disassemble his former opinions and rebuild them from scratch so as to remove any imperfections in his reasoning. He makes it very clear that he does not recommend such a procedure on a public institution, but that the individual mind is a candidate. However, he then continues to make people wary that those who lack patience or think that they know more than they really do will certainly fail. Before Descartes underwent the procedure of purging his mind of logical fallacies and biases, he made certain to establish fundamental rules for rebuilding opinions. First¸ he must not accept anything as truth unless it is evident. That way he would not make any hasty conclusions. Second, he would divide larger problems into as many smaller parts as possible, so as to evaluate each and every scenario at the most fundamental level. Third, he would begin with the simplest problems and progress towards the more difficult and involved questions. Fourth, he would make sure that he monitored his progress to ensure that he did not revert to old judgmental habits. It is from these four laws that the title of his book is derived. These laws were perhaps the most important devices that Descartes developed, for they gave his musings a level of consistency and fundamental merit. Without them, he would have simply been yet another man who believes he knows how the world works, with nothing but his personal opinions to use as evidence.

Perhaps Descartes' most profound work is his attempts to prove the existence of God. He concludes that humans are imperfect because God is perfect, and humans cannot possibly be on the same level as God. Knowing this, he claims that light, sky, and earth could be delusions of an imperfect mind, as they are imperfect objects. However, it is fundamentally impossible for an imperfect mind to invent the idea of a perfect God, for only a perfect mind could accomplish such a feat (which Descartes already explained does not exist). Therefore, God must exist because the idea of a perfect God exists, which could only be created by a perfect mind. Despite his implementation of the scientific method to establish laws for his conclusions, it seems that Descartes let his religious beliefs interfere with the acquisition of the "truth" on the matter. Humans idealize virtually everything, from (using a modern-day example) the car they would drive to the partner that they would have. Knowing this, why would humans not be able to idealize a perfect God? Descartes offers no answer to this question, but rather dismisses it as a fact that needs no support.

Geometry was the basis of his next attempt to prove the existence of God. A triangle is composed of three angle that add up to 180 degrees; this fact can be mathematically proven, despite the fact that there is no absolute proof that there is a triangle that exists in the world. Three angles adding up to 180 degrees is an essential attribute of a triangle. Descartes concludes that existence is an essential attribute of God, therefore the existence of God can be believed as much as any geometric proof. If the existence of a triangle can be believed based solely upon a geometric proof without actually seeing an actual triangle, the same can be believed about God. This is not one of Descartes' more logical arguments. A triangle (or the idea of a triangle) can be physically drawn, measured, and calculated using mathematics, whereas there are no such devices that can be used on God. Descartes tries to draw a parallel between the existence of triangles and the existence of God, and since the existence of triangles is widely accepted, so, then, should the existence of God. He claims that this concept is difficult for humans to grasp because it does not rely on their senses or imagination, both of which they have absolute trust in. Throughout history, scientists have accepted things as fact based on whether they can actually detect them using one or more of the five human senses. The existence of God cannot be proven in this way, which makes it faith. Faith, by definition, is an unquestioning belief. Unquestioned beliefs are not scientific, but rather personal opinions, which are not allowed according to Descartes' own method. Ultimately, through all of his trials and tribulations brought about by his philosophical method, Descartes concludes that the only thing he can prove is that he himself exists. After all, he is thinking, therefore he must exist (cogito ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am"). This assessment is a critical one for philosophers. Seemingly everything is debatable (even many of Descartes' philosophical discoveries are off-base or lacking support), but he is absolutely convinced that he exists, and nothing anyone can say can disprove that. Regardless of the fallacies that lace his other opinions reflected in Discourse On Method, the cornerstone of humanity (in his mind and the mind of countless other philosophers), is that thought indicates being.