Descartes vs. Pinker Post #3 Regan Bradley

After studying the Robin Notes on Descartes, there is a universal reason or a general common sense that people believe exists. I write that as "believe" because we have socially created the sense of what is right or wrong. We are conditioned to inhibit out barbarian genetics in order to "play politely" with others in our society. This shapes how we see our world. There are two lens in which I believe we can see the world. The socially constructed lens in which we know right and wrong, laws and policy, science and culture, people and beliefs. These are all socially constructed either by philosophers or psychologists such as Descartes and Pinker or government/leadership agencies, which we created. In addition to the socially constructed lens, there is our own personal lens: the curious one we are born with. This lens is the one that questions why we call the color green green or what is normal in our own minds as compared to others. This is the lens that pushes some people to void of society and live off the land on their own without human contact. This is the lens that questions religion and culture and science and behaviors. Both of these lens allow us to see and create who we are.

Descartes meditated on the idea that he has no body and no senses because he believed there is no certainty in anything we do and in anything we are. What you see does not mean that it exists? In Descartes mind, where are we? Who are we? Do we exist only because we think we do? Are we all just a figment of an imagination of a watchmaker God or are we physical beings on a distinct location? That last sentence alone stops me in my, I guess possiby imaginary, tracks. This inhibits Pinker's idea that we are hard-wired in our genes. Do our genes exist? Pinker states we learn language or actions because we are genetically able to do so, not the nurture side of the common argument that we are taught these abilities through experience. These two inhibit each other due to the fact that is our bodies don't truly exist how are we to determine where we come from and how we become who we are such as genetics or experience. However, I think they complement each other in a way that is quite interesting. If according to Descartes, how bodies and our beings are, simple-put, imaginary, are we constructing our own genetics and where they come from? If we are just in the imagination of a watchmaker god, are we enjoying the ride in his mind through creating who we are and giving ourselves elaborate backstories as we do to characters in a book? Are we just characters in a book?

I believe this will continue to play out scientifically and theoretically as a mess. Personally, I like to think of it scientifically. We are physical beings, on a planet, with genetics and a true existence. However, we will be constantly debating our existence typically between scientists and philosophers. We will never know the right or wrong. This argument will steer us in many directions but which way is right? I do not believe we will ever see this clearly.