Saturday, February 1, 2014

Descarte's error -- a different take

Was Rene Descartes' real realization of the self "When I do not think, I am not?"
Why should someone like me be rash enough to try to invert the most famous statement of the most respected philosopher in this manner? In my defense I plead thus:

1. 
If I don't think, I am not. (Illustration sourced from the Net)
Descartes sat  in meditation in his dutch stove for three days. Anyone who does that will observe that his thought processes slowly stop. Then to most people something else happens, rather predictably, if the enquirer is serious and composed. He loses his identity, as well as the identity of his surroundings [the separation of the self is an illusion created by our brain to keep ourselves out of harm from the environment.] When the inquirer returns to normal "reality" he may  not be able to give meaningful verbal interpretations of his state when his thoughts had stopped.
2. During this thought-free state there was no  "Rene Descartes" --- there was no 'I" or "You" or "It". The "I" and other entities had existed only when his thought process operated. Thought had been interpreting everything and had given these its own brand of reality, including the thought's notion of the "I". It was natural that Descartes or anybody should immediately realize that "I" was a pure function of thought, created by thought and kept nurtured by thought. This means Descartes realization may really have been "I am not when I think not."* or *"I am a product of my thought." or "When I think I create myself and all the reality around me."

3. This line of reasoning would have been considered routine in 17th century India and China where "I" was generally accepted as a construct of one's thought -- and Indian philosophers (most of them at least) used to arrive at this conclusion themselves by shutting themselves out of outside interferences. In other words, (2) above would have been the initial insight Descartes would have had.

4. Instead, Descartes seems to have become frightened by the non-I state he encountered. So he started worrying that the Devil (or perhaps even God) might have tricked him. So in his subsequent meditations Descartes used his thinking apparatus to rationalize his experience and till he was able to give his original finding a socially acceptable fig leaf ["I think therefore I am". Though twisted, and capable of fooling most people, it is certainly not an outright lie.

What could have caused Descartes do that that? In 21st century, with all freedom of thinking and expression we enjoy, it would seem incredible. But not in 17th century Europe. If he said "I" did not exist and it was a mere figment of our imagination, he would be placing himself directly in the firing line of the Church by negating the individuality of each person and their soul. Such a teaching would have been philosophically and economically ruinous for the Church, and they would not have spared him. It also seems that he had put himself in a fix by forcing himself to prove the existence of God. If he was forced to twist his words because of the constraints of the period, can we trust his explanation of "Ergo sum?" In any case, why did he  have to write so much about the simple and straightforward Ergo sum unless he was trying to hide?

5. If I happen to be right in my above reasoning, it would also follow that we should never study a philosopher apart from his life and times. Both should be given equal importance. Perhaps one should study a critical biography of a philosopher before studying his philosophy.

______________________________________________
Note: Descartes may not have been alone in his discomfort. The reality goes against all social norms of all societies. So philosophers try to break the truth as gently as possible, and more often hide it so that only those who can cut through the social fluff can see it.
**Even in India, which was far more liberal about these things, philosophers sometimes used roundabout language. For example the Bhagavad Gita says  --- "The Self was never born so it will never die." The intended meaning hidden right under the nose of devotees: "There is no such thing as the Self, it has never existed so how can it die?" (Then the argument may come that the statement refers to the Universal Self. Trying to answer that will be beyond the scope of this posting.)

This was my opening post in a discussion in the Philosophy Community of Google+. And interesting discussion followed. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SajjeevAntony/posts/aBoaowB8fgA

No comments:

Post a Comment