Descartes' most acclaimed contribution to the field of philosophy are the famous words "I think therefore I am." He came to this conclusion after casting a cartesian doubt upon the world and extrapolating from it that the only thing he could truly be certain about in life was the fact that he was alive because of his very capacity to think. This speaks to the time of the enlightenment where reason was revered as the item of utmost importance in life.
Descartes' method of radical doubt asks us to question everything we think we know. Imagine you wake up tomorrow with no memories, no sense of self, just the raw experience of existing. What is the first thing you become certain of? According to Descartes, it is the act of doubting itself. His famous phrase is a starting point, but is "I think" truly the only foundation for certainty? Can we be sure of anything else besides the act of thinking itself? Share your thoughts on the limitations or potential of this foundational principle. Have you found yourself in moments in life where you needed to confront true doubt over your existence? Perhaps it wasn't so grand, perhaps you needed to doubt your surroundings, perhaps you doubted yourself. Share what led you to these contemplations and the knowledge you extracted from them.
Substance Dualism
Descartes argued for substance dualism, where mind and body are fundamentally different substances. The mind (res cogitans) is immaterial and can think, while the body (res extensa) is physical and takes up space.
"The soul is a being or substance which is not at all corporeal, whose nature is solely to think."
However this theory poses some vital questions with regard to our existence. Descartes posited that the mind was somehow removed from the body, however a deeper look into human neurology demonstrates how intricately our decision making, perception and thought process (ie. the composites of the mind) are commanded by the physical functioning of the brain. So much of our lived experience is also so intricately tied to our physical interaction with the world. Given this, how do you interperate Descartes' view on substance dualism? Is the mind essential and not the body and can the mind thus live on without the body?
Satirical Critique of Optimism
Descartes' ontological argument aims to prove God's existence through reason alone. It defines God as the greatest imaginable being, and argues that such a being would be greater if it actually existed. Therefore, God must exist. He also posits this through pondering a lack of God.
"Well, if God didn’t exist, from what would I derive my existence? It would have to come from myself, or from my parents, or from some other beings less perfect than God (a being more perfect than God, or even one as perfect, is unthinkable).
If I had derived my existence from myself, I would not now doubt or want or lack anything at all; for I would have given myself all the perfections of which I have any idea. So I would be God. [...]
Given the failure of every other candidacy for the role of cause of me and of my idea of a most perfect being, I infer that the only successful candidacy is God’s. Thus, I conclude that the mere fact that I exist and have within me an idea of a most perfect being – that is, God – provides a clear proof that God does indeed exist."
One could argue that Descartes actually redefines God rather than proves existence, and that existence itself isn't a perfection. In addition, we can mark a seperation here in between the existence of God and the notion of Faith. Is the ontological argument a valid conclusion to the existence of God? What is God without religion? How do your views on the notion of God speak to Descartes claims?
Voltaire
Satirical Critique of Optimism
Voltaire came to fame in large part due to the witty yet insightful disposition of his writing - propelling him to become one of the great masters of satire. This is perhaps most evident in his infamous novel Candide, where he criticizes the philosophy of optimism. Voltaire uses Candide's idealistic and naive views on the world to dispel the ignorance, absurdity and callowness of this stance as illustrated by the following quotes:
"[Optimism] is the obstinacy of maintaining that everything is best when it is worst."
Expressing that optimism is a form of denial
"War is a fine thing. It's so amusing to see people killing each other."
Commentary on the horrors of war
"I have learned that we must cultivate our garden," said Candide. "But what is to be done with the rest of the world?" asked Martin. "We must let it go to the devil," said Candide.
Commentary on the futility of trying to change the world.
"The Lisbon earthquake was a little misfortune."
Use of understatement to critique the idea that God is all-powerful and all-good
"All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds."
Parody of the Leibnizian philosophy of optimism
His masterpiece is a dance between extreme optimism and cynicism where he warns against the foolishness of naivety as well as the despair of acknowledging the evils of this world. How do you perceive the philosophy of optimism as Voltaire presents it in your own life? How is it influenced by cultural and situational factors? Would you rather be an ignorant fool but happy (ie. Pangloss) or live in utter hopelessness but be wise (ie. Martin)? Where does the notion of hope lie in the midst of this?
Tolerance
Religious tolerance is a human right we often take for granted in this day and age, yet if we have this right today it is in part due to the influence Voltaire had with his "Treatise on Tolerance." Voltaire wrote this treatise at a time where the baseline was intolerance.
In Chapter V (Read Here p. 14-16), Voltaire explains his sharp disdain for dogmatic religious rule and writes "The more sects there are, the less dangerous each of them is; multiplicity weakens them." This rationale remains true today, the more diversity we embrace, the lower the probability for one "sect" to become all-powerful. However one can also posit that we live in a world that is increasingly radicalized by "chosen dogmas". How do you think Voltaire's rhetoric around freedom of speech and religious tolerance fits into modern society? We now live in a world where online platforms have simultaneously served as momentous outlets of diverse thoughts while also being the birthplace of dangerous extremist groups. Where do you think we stand when it comes to tolerance? Do we reside in a fundamentally intolerant and fragmented society (as Voltaire did) or in a society that artificially pushes tolerance to the point of silencing its people (ie. through the hyper-focus on political correctness)? What is the state of tolerance today and how does it compare to the notion of tolerance that Voltaire set forth in his treatise?
Supremacy of Reason
Voltaire was a momentous figure of the enlightenment and advocated for reason to be at the core of societal structures. He endured being locked up and exiled from his homeland in order to propagate his thoughts on human rights. In a world dictated by monarchs and a corrupt Catholic Church, Voltaire challenged the status quo and mobilized people to question the existing state of affairs. To propel this further, he wrote the Philosophical Dictionary to promote the use of reason and criticize superstition, religious intolerance and injustice. This work serves as a philosophical encyclopedia of sorts and is a collection of Voltaire's thoughts on a variety of topics, including religion, politics, philosophy, and science. Through this work, Voltaire sought to thrust wisdom and critical reasoning into the minds of the populous. He wrote "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" to warn against fanaticism.
Where do you see these forms of fanaticism today? We are in large ways still at the forefront of artificial intelligence and can see how generative AI offers a singular (and perhaps dogmatic) response to a flurry of questions we might have. In comparison to Voltaire's time, we perhaps ask more questions but are we increasingly idle when it comes to critically assessing the answers?