• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Ep. 229: Descartes’s Rules for Thinking (Part One)

November 4, 2019 by Mark Linsenmayer Leave a Comment

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/partiallyexaminedlife/PEL_ep_229pt1_10-15-19.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 50:44 — 46.5MB)

On René Descartes's Rules for Direction of the Mind (1628).

Is there a careful way to approach problems that will ensure that you'll always be right? What if you're just really careful to never assert anything you can't be sure of? This is Descartes's strategy, modeled on mathematics.

This early, incomplete work lays out 21 rules for careful thinking (out of a planned 36) with extensive commentary on how to apply them. It is extremely helpful in figuring out where Descartes is coming from in the Meditations, and it lays out the foundations for both analytic philosophy and the emphasis on quantitative analysis in modern science.

The central premise is that philosophical disagreements are caused by sloppy formulation of problems. If you can break down an issue to its simplest components, then insofar as those components lie within the range of human understanding at all, everyone who carefully attends to those elements will agree about their nature. Ultimately judgment is just a matter of comparing two simple things set before the mind: We can all tell that 1 and 2 are different and that the second is greater than the first (twice as great!).

If you're a scientist trying to understand something like magnetism, then, we break down what we're seeing: motion, masses, and certain types of materials (the magnet and the attracted metal). We make observations and try to quantify everything (e.g., distances between the magnet and the metal, different masses of the two) and come up with ratios and thus a formula for how changing one factor (e.g., distance) changes another (attraction) all others being equal. We thereby come up with some formulas that describe the phenomena of magnetism.

But notice what this leaves out: We don't actually know what magnetism is, i.e., the nature of the forces behind it. For a seventeenth-century experimental scientist, Descartes would say that we simply can't know anything about magnetism's intrinsic nature, and to pretend we can is just unwarranted mysticism. Now, with technology that increases the capacity of our senses to further isolate the elements involved (we can now get down to the atomic level and say exactly how various metals are chemically different from each other), we can say more about magnetism, but there are still limits to our understanding (consider our current theories of gravity).

Descartes is known as a rationalist, and as I said, his method is based on that used in mathematical reasoning, but in practice, he's closer to Bacon. As we see in Descartes's later thinking in the Meditations, though, he does voyage beyond "Universal Mathematics" and the realm of quantifiable scientific thought into metaphysics, because he includes among the simple, understandable elements of the universe not only things like extension and motion but also the concept of God. Why? Because we can only understand and be certain about the experienced world by abstracting from the complexity we see and viewing the basic elements in our mind's eye (our intellectual intuition) just like that viewing of 1 and 2 I described above. An empiricist will deny reality to any concept that can't be somehow reduced to something in sense experience, while a rationalist like Descartes denies that we really understand anything in experience that can't be abstracted from and analyzed by the mind. It's not the senses that deceive us precisely but our intellectual judgments about sensations. We can be absolutely certain that we are having the experiences themselves, but not about how those experiences relate to what the external world is really like.

In keeping with Descartes's directives to move slowly and carefully, Mark, Dylan, Wes, and Seth walk rule by rule through this text. This is just part one of three; continue with part 2, or get the full, unbroken Citizen Edition. Please support PEL!

The online PDF version that we most often refer to (tr. Haldane and Ross) is here, or you can buy it as part of The Essential Descartes. The abridgment that includes the smooth-reading Anscombe/Geach translations is here. Also see the IEP's entry on Descartes and the scientific method.

Image by Sterling Bartlett.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes Tagged With: epistemology, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of science, philosophy podcast, rationalism, Rene Descartes

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Evan Hadkins on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Bibliophile on Pretty Much Pop #143: Pinocchio the Unfilmable (Yet Frequently Filmed)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in