Descartes questions reality, claims God exists and made us, and claims the mind and body are separate. I am taking Foundations of Biology 1 this semester and as I learn more in both that class and this one, I can see connections and arguments forming. As I learn more about science, I am beginning to see the world in a more scientific view, and therefore have a lot to question about Cartesian thinking. In some areas I agree with Descartes, while in others, my Biology textbook strongly disagrees.
So, Descartes questions reality a lot. Doesn't everyone though?? The role of science (according to my biology class) is to question natural phenomena. So I agree that we should question everything, part of being a critical thinker, but also we do need to accept the world for what it is sometimes. We are real, there is evidence that we evolved, we were not created. Which leads me to my next point, according to Descartes, God made our universe and then stepped back and let us live. Science cannot necessarily disprove this because no one was around to see this happen, but we have theories that do not involve a divine being. So on this point, I am neutral and neither agree nor disagree with Descartes, because I want to believe there is more out there than just this life on Earth, but I have no evidence for or against that.
Descartes says "I think, therefore I am." So, just because he thinks, he is a living, breathing thing--which gives full credit of life to the mind, and none to the body. Since I am in Foundations of Biology, I have just learned what qualities something must have to be considered 'living' by scientists. Living organisms must: have cells as the simplest unit of life, use energy, interact with their environment, maintain a homeostasis, grow and develop, have genetic material that provides a blueprint for
reproduction, evolve, and have structures that determine function. No where in my textbook does it say living organisms must be able to think to be considered living. A bacteria cell is considered alive, though it has no brain and so cannot think. Therefore, I disagree with Descartes' claim that the mind and body are separate things because the mind cannot live without a body, and a body cannot live without a mind. They are dependent on each other always. Even when the body may continue breathing and "living" while a person is considered brain-dead, the body can only survive because of our modern technology and when this technology (ie: a respirator) is taken away, the person is now considered dead. To most scientists today, this is common sense. Unpopular opinion, but, in this area, I think Descartes' thinking is outdated.
To me, thinking more scientifically helps me see the world more clearly. Pretty much everything is black or white, true or false, good or bad. Science does have its limits, but I feel more comfort when there is evidence present and conclusions can be drawn. In this day and age, sometimes Cartesian thinking can still apply, but not always. Like science, our view of the world must change as new evidence comes along.
I agree with almost everything you said. Descartes clearly has to make some huge assumptions to prove to himself that his reality is real. Your thought process clearly is more founded in evidence (data) than Descartes's views.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I personally don't read his "I think, therefore I am" claim as necessarily implying that he is alive in a biological sense. Your definition for life is basically indisputable. But wouldn't it be possible to falsely think you exist as you do? Would "you" have to be biological? Eventually Descartes uses creative assumptions to get to his certainty of reality, but all we know is that somewhere, sometime, in some form, there is a construction of ourselves that thinks of itself as "me". Basically any knowledge beyond that becomes less certain. To your point, the best we can do to resolve this relative uncertainty is use science to understand bigger questions.