Why Descartes Was Really Wrong
He was lying. He never doubted he existed in the first place. He didn't invent a new kind of philosophy. He didn't invent lying. Stories are lies. Stories are nice. You're in on the lie. Descartes invented lying and calling it philosophy, a new kind of lying where you're not in on it. Maybe you could say he invented breaking the bond between two people talking. He invented autistic philosophy, the philosophy of entertaining yourself only. No, it does too much violence to relationship to be called autistic. How about narcissistic philosophy, the philosophy of whatever odd thing I dream up and call my philosophical project. Even if it has no urgency or even reality to me I'll call it philosophy.
If Descartes had doubted his own existence he wouldn't have said so in French, the language he learned from his mother, or Latin, the language he learned in school. He wouldn't have doubted his own existence without doubting the existence of Latin, and school, and French, and his mother. Doubting your existence is meaningless without falling into a catatonic state where you have no language and no relationships. Doubting your own existence is in the realm of fairy tales. It's like silver grass. J. R. R. Tolkein says that fairy tales come from the discovery of the power of language. You put together two words for everyday things, silver and grass, and get something you have never seen in this world, silver grass. Glass and slipper. Pumpkin and coach. I and nonexistence.
Descartes must have felt the power of language when he thought of the idea of himself not existing. The problem itself must have brought him excitement, not anguish. His solution -- I think therefore I am -- was just a corollary to the problem. To state the problem was to invent a new use of language: the fairy tale where only the storyteller knows it's a lie, where the statement of the problem is a happy event for the storyteller and a sad event for the listener, and where the solution is mildly happy but mostly unsatisfying for both of them.
It's fashionable in cognitive science and neurology to blame Descartes for the bad idea that the mind is separate from the body. His idea was bad enough, but his behavior was worse. He didn't just introduce a split between the mind and the body. He introduced a split between me and you and between me and myself: me the talker and you the listener, me the thinker and myself what I'm thinking about. There were several published responses to Descartes' philosophy at the time, but did anybody talk to his mother? Don't exist? Who drank my breast milk? Whose shit did I clean up?
And, I would add, in whose language are you thinking the thought that you don't exist?
You might say, maybe Descartes never doubted his existence and never pretended to doubt his existence. Maybe the question, how do I know I exist? came from curiosity instead of doubt. Maybe it's not, I might not exist. Maybe it's, I do know that I exist, but by what process did I come by that knowledge? There are some things I know, and I know why I know them. There are other things I know, but I don't know why I know them. I know what ambiguous means, because somebody told me. I know why my car has a flat tire, because I saw the manhole sticking up out of the road and I felt the bump, and I know it's easy to put a hole in these sporty tires because I've done it before.
I know when my cat starts chewing my toes it means she's really hungry. This is a tricky one. I really know it from experience, but I strongly suspected it the first time she did it because why else would she be chewing the parts of my body that look most like pellets of cat food? By the same token I know what disambiguate means, because I looked it up, but I already strongly suspected what it meant because I knew dis-, ambiguous, and -ate.
I also know what a number is, and I know that pi is less than 22/7 (or bigger, if I made a mistake). I know these things more firmly than the other things, maybe even in a different way, but I have a less clear idea of how I came to know them.
Maybe Descartes was not even asking, by what process do I know that I exist. Maybe he was saying, I seem to know different things in different ways. In which of those ways do I know that I exist? Which of the different kinds of knowledge is it? Do I know that I exist in the same way that I know why my cat chews my toes, or do I know that I exist in the same way that I know that pi is less than 22/7 (or bigger), or do I know it in some other way?
I don't think Descartes was asking this question, because his answer didn't answer it. His answer was, I think therefore I am. His answer does say this much though about what kind of knowledge it is that I exist: it's the kind of thing you come to know by reasoning it out. How do I come to know that I exist? First I know that I think, then because of that I know that I exist.
This isn't making sense. I knew that I existed before I knew I was thinking. I didn't arrive at the knowledge that I exist through reasoning. We are back to the original Descartes who doubted that he existed, or lied about doubting that he existed. If it had been either of the other two questions, how I came to know, or what kind of knowledge is it, the nearest explanation at hand is different from the one Descartes came up with. How do I come to know I exist? That's a funny question. How would I come to know that I don't exist? It's hard to know even what it would mean for me not to exist, so I have never even contemplated that possibility. I would say this: I started out assuming that I exist, and nothing so far has made me question that assumption. But even that isn't true. I haven't really assumed it, because I wouldn't know how to act on that assumption, because I wouldn't know how to act on the opposite assumption. What is more true is that I have never seen any reason to raise the question. First you tell me what my nonexistence would look like and then I'll tell you why I know it's not true.
Descartes reminds me of certain people I knew as an undergraduate who arrived there with more brains than they knew what to do with. The prevailing wisdom for them was that whatever you know just from looking around you and making simple judgments is wrong. When my cat rubbed against my legs I said he was being affectionate, but they corrected me. He was marking his territory with the glands in his cheek. He thought I was a tree. I was guilty of anthropomorphism.
Oh? We anthropomorphize people, too. How did you first decide your mother was being affectionate toward you? You didn't. It's a question that you have never raised. If you think about what constitutes affectionate behavior in your mother it's pretty much like affectionate behavior in animals. The idea that my cat isn't being affectionate has almost nothing to recommend it. My cat doesn't treat me like a tree in any other way. He doesn't climb me when a dog chases him. After he rubs my legs he jumps in my lap and purrs.
Almost nothing to recommend it. It does have a certain autistic cognitive appeal. Here's a trick I learned at college, it says.
If Descartes had doubted his own existence he wouldn't have said so in French, the language he learned from his mother, or Latin, the language he learned in school. He wouldn't have doubted his own existence without doubting the existence of Latin, and school, and French, and his mother. Doubting your existence is meaningless without falling into a catatonic state where you have no language and no relationships. Doubting your own existence is in the realm of fairy tales. It's like silver grass. J. R. R. Tolkein says that fairy tales come from the discovery of the power of language. You put together two words for everyday things, silver and grass, and get something you have never seen in this world, silver grass. Glass and slipper. Pumpkin and coach. I and nonexistence.
Descartes must have felt the power of language when he thought of the idea of himself not existing. The problem itself must have brought him excitement, not anguish. His solution -- I think therefore I am -- was just a corollary to the problem. To state the problem was to invent a new use of language: the fairy tale where only the storyteller knows it's a lie, where the statement of the problem is a happy event for the storyteller and a sad event for the listener, and where the solution is mildly happy but mostly unsatisfying for both of them.
It's fashionable in cognitive science and neurology to blame Descartes for the bad idea that the mind is separate from the body. His idea was bad enough, but his behavior was worse. He didn't just introduce a split between the mind and the body. He introduced a split between me and you and between me and myself: me the talker and you the listener, me the thinker and myself what I'm thinking about. There were several published responses to Descartes' philosophy at the time, but did anybody talk to his mother? Don't exist? Who drank my breast milk? Whose shit did I clean up?
And, I would add, in whose language are you thinking the thought that you don't exist?
You might say, maybe Descartes never doubted his existence and never pretended to doubt his existence. Maybe the question, how do I know I exist? came from curiosity instead of doubt. Maybe it's not, I might not exist. Maybe it's, I do know that I exist, but by what process did I come by that knowledge? There are some things I know, and I know why I know them. There are other things I know, but I don't know why I know them. I know what ambiguous means, because somebody told me. I know why my car has a flat tire, because I saw the manhole sticking up out of the road and I felt the bump, and I know it's easy to put a hole in these sporty tires because I've done it before.
I know when my cat starts chewing my toes it means she's really hungry. This is a tricky one. I really know it from experience, but I strongly suspected it the first time she did it because why else would she be chewing the parts of my body that look most like pellets of cat food? By the same token I know what disambiguate means, because I looked it up, but I already strongly suspected what it meant because I knew dis-, ambiguous, and -ate.
I also know what a number is, and I know that pi is less than 22/7 (or bigger, if I made a mistake). I know these things more firmly than the other things, maybe even in a different way, but I have a less clear idea of how I came to know them.
Maybe Descartes was not even asking, by what process do I know that I exist. Maybe he was saying, I seem to know different things in different ways. In which of those ways do I know that I exist? Which of the different kinds of knowledge is it? Do I know that I exist in the same way that I know why my cat chews my toes, or do I know that I exist in the same way that I know that pi is less than 22/7 (or bigger), or do I know it in some other way?
I don't think Descartes was asking this question, because his answer didn't answer it. His answer was, I think therefore I am. His answer does say this much though about what kind of knowledge it is that I exist: it's the kind of thing you come to know by reasoning it out. How do I come to know that I exist? First I know that I think, then because of that I know that I exist.
This isn't making sense. I knew that I existed before I knew I was thinking. I didn't arrive at the knowledge that I exist through reasoning. We are back to the original Descartes who doubted that he existed, or lied about doubting that he existed. If it had been either of the other two questions, how I came to know, or what kind of knowledge is it, the nearest explanation at hand is different from the one Descartes came up with. How do I come to know I exist? That's a funny question. How would I come to know that I don't exist? It's hard to know even what it would mean for me not to exist, so I have never even contemplated that possibility. I would say this: I started out assuming that I exist, and nothing so far has made me question that assumption. But even that isn't true. I haven't really assumed it, because I wouldn't know how to act on that assumption, because I wouldn't know how to act on the opposite assumption. What is more true is that I have never seen any reason to raise the question. First you tell me what my nonexistence would look like and then I'll tell you why I know it's not true.
Descartes reminds me of certain people I knew as an undergraduate who arrived there with more brains than they knew what to do with. The prevailing wisdom for them was that whatever you know just from looking around you and making simple judgments is wrong. When my cat rubbed against my legs I said he was being affectionate, but they corrected me. He was marking his territory with the glands in his cheek. He thought I was a tree. I was guilty of anthropomorphism.
Oh? We anthropomorphize people, too. How did you first decide your mother was being affectionate toward you? You didn't. It's a question that you have never raised. If you think about what constitutes affectionate behavior in your mother it's pretty much like affectionate behavior in animals. The idea that my cat isn't being affectionate has almost nothing to recommend it. My cat doesn't treat me like a tree in any other way. He doesn't climb me when a dog chases him. After he rubs my legs he jumps in my lap and purrs.
Almost nothing to recommend it. It does have a certain autistic cognitive appeal. Here's a trick I learned at college, it says.
Labels: Epistemology, Language
posted by David Gillman at 7:39 PM
0 comments
