the immanetist critique

Descartes in his six discourses on the method claims to have found a particularly effective method of guiding his reason that has helped him to make many significant discoveries in his scientific research. He undertakes to explain his method by means of autobiography: he tells the story of his intellectual development and of how he came upon this method.
In the first discourse, he starts by presenting one thing that is most fairly distributed in the world: good sense, which he defines as 'the power of judging well and distinguishing truth from falsity,' which he says is naturally equal in all people. He further says that, “good sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have.” He however points out that our difference in opinion does not arise because of superiority in rationality in others but rather, because people 'direct their thoughts along different ways and do not consider the same things.' He argues that it is not enough to have a sound mind, but that the most important thing is its applicability (the sound mind). This proper application of the mind is what he endevours to achieve and is what he presents here; application that helps one to achieve clear and distinct ideas. Descartes knowing how liable all are to error in what relates to self, including himself, he tries to show the path he has taken and which represents his life. He does not present the method all ought to follow in order to direct their reason correctly, but rather he tries to show that he has tried to direct his own thinking.
After long years of formal studies in some best schools, Descartes finds himself “embarrassed by so many doubts and errors” that it seems to him that 'the only profit' he had had from his efforts to acquire knowledge was his 'progressive discovery' of his own ignorance. Although he says it is good to examine various disciplines, he disregards most them. For example, comparing history to traveling, he says that 'a man who spends too much time traveling becomes a foreigner in his own country' and that to much curiosity of customs of the past goes as a rule with great ignorance of the present customs. He also disregards poetry and rhetoric as natural gifts rather than fruits of study. As a result, he embraces mathematics which gives consistent and coherent proofs.
After discerning in mathematics, because of its 'certainty and self -evidence of reasoning,' he sees that his reasoning can find a firm foundation on mathematics especially geometry, which creates indubitable reasoning. Thus, he starts by disregarding all subjects; save for theology which he says is above his reason, and for mathematics which provided a solid foundation for his discourse. He particularly doubts the validity of sciences, for he says that they have a 'shaky foundation.' he also disregards all pinions of other people ad resolve to make his own studies within himself and use the power of his mind to choose the path to follow. This thus presents Descartes not only as a skeptic (who disregards sensible thing and the opinion of others), but also as a pure rationalist, who has absolute confidence in the power of reason.
In the second discourse, Descartes clearly presents his problem, the problem of attainment of intellectual certainty. He thus desires to acquire a reality that is indubitable and unquestionable, a reality that is intellectually certain. To do this, he sets off by rejecting everything that is, destroying all shaky foundations he has had and coming up with rules to help him find certainty. He says that “I could not do better than to set about rejecting them bodily, so that later on I might admit to believe either other, better opinions or even the same one.pg17. He does not intend to follow any kind of short cuts but rather to follow an extensive path of reasoning to attain certainty, for he says that “ just as high roads that wind about between the hills become gradually so well beaten and convenient through being much used, that it is far much better to follow them than to try to take a short cut by climbing rocks and going down to the bottom of precipices.” Thus, his plan is to try reform his own thought and rebuild them on the ground that is altogether his own.
On knowledge about the people in the world, he says that the world has two kinds of people; those who think that they are clever more than they are, and those who think that they cannot distinguish truth from falsity. This he thinks is unacceptable since, as he had already said, all have been endowed with 'good sense.' he disagrees with the idea of universal agreement, for he notes that “it is much more likely that one person should have hit them(knowledge and truth) for himself, than that a whole nation should.”
The four rules: To direct his thinking, he comes up with four rules for discourse on the method. First, he sets never to accept anything as true that is not clearly and distinctly recognized as so. He does this to avoid precipitancy and prejudice and to embrace his mind only to what presents itself as to his mind so clearly and distinctly. Secondly, he sets to divide each problem he examined into as many parts as possible for its better solution. Thirdly, he sets to advance from the more simple and easy, to knowledge of other complex related objects. This he sets to do by directing his thoughts in an orderly way. Lastly, he intends to make sure that even after such an analysis and division, nothing is omitted in this process. He immediately finds this method effective in solving problems that he had found too difficult before.
From the above four rules it can be noted that a universal methodic (hyperbolic) doubt can be deduced, that is, he uses skeptical arguments not because he is a skeptic himself, but as an analytic device to identify the indubitable. Such a method as he has used it follows the rules of geometry, where everything follows each other necessarily. He notes that “as long as we avoid accepting as true what is not so, and always preserve the right order for deduction of one thing from another, there can be nothing too remote to be reached or too well hidden to be discovered. Indeed, he has full trust in this method (geometrical method) that he thinks the method can be used in all fields. He says that “my method of following the proper order and exactly enumerating all conditions of the problem comprises everything that gives the rule of arithmetic their certainty.” he in fact argues that he has a special pleasure in the method because it ensures him using reason in all fields. Therefore, because the method could be used in all fields, the only necessary thing is to constantly and repeatedly use it.
In the third discourse, in order to come to certainty, Descartes establishes four provisional codes of morals. First, he sets to obey the laws and customs of his country and to faithfully keep to the religion in which he has been raised up and never to take any extreme opinion.pg24. Secondly, he endevours to be as “firm and resolute in action as he could and follow out his most doubtful opinion.”pg25. He compares himself to the lost travelers in the woods, that no matter what, they must not turn left or right but rather, keep on walking as straight as they could in one direction and not to change cause for any slightest reason. He indeed asserts that “it is a sure truth that when we cannot discern the most correct opinion, we must follow the most probable.” Thirdly, he sets to change himself and not the world. In his own words, he says ....try always to concur myself rather than fortune, to change my desire rather than the world.....from the habit of thinking that only our thoughts are completely within our power.” this he sets so that he may be content. Also by doing this, he shuns the worldly material things and resolves not to be tempted by them.
Finally, on moral codes, he sets to examine all the professions in the world and tries to figure out what the best is among them. Thus, he decides to dedicate all his life in cultivating his reason and to advance in the way of knowledge and truth, following his self imposed method. Pg27. He argues that reasoning and search for knowledge is, if not the highest calling, at least extremely useful. Descartes believes that God has given him power to distinguish between truth and falsity, and that he should have thought himself to not rest content with other people's opinion.pg27
In his view, right judgment precedes right action and that the best possible judgment precedes all things one can do right. He affirms here that he did not take up skepticism to be like a skeptic whose aim is to doubt just for the sake of doubting and effect be always undecided, but rather, his aim is to reach security of not stumbling on any error. Thus, his is a purely methodic doubt. For many years after his revelation, Descartes travels widely and gains reputation and wisdom. He then retires to examine his thoughts and solitude.
Proof for the existence of I and God. In the fourth discourse, Descartes offers proofs for the existence of ‘I’ (ergo) and God. Contemplating on the nature of truth, and the unreliability of senses, Descartes become aware of his own process of thinking. That while he is trying to doubt everything, he says that it must therefore be that “I, who is thinking this (qui le pensais), was something.” pg 31. Thus observing this truth, “I am thinking (je pense), therefore I exist.” pg 31. That is, cogito ergo sum. He says that this truth “was so solid and secure that the most extravagant supposition of the skeptic could not overthrow it.” Thus, this (cogito ergo sum) becomes his first principle. He thus puts full trust in the 'I' and takes to doubt all other things because without ‘I,’ all other things cease to be. He says that it is the soul, that makes him who he is, separate and distinct from the body and that the soul is immortal and completely independent, and can exist without the body. Pg 32.
Descartes considers that certainty consist in the fact that “he who is thinking exists”, and this assures him that he speaks the truth, and that he sees very clearly that in order to think, he must exist. Yet he doubts the existence of his own body. His own doubt however leads him to believe that he is imperfect, as he states, “For I saw very clearly that knowledge was a greater perfection than doubt.” In his knowledge and doubt, he realizes that he has the idea of something more perfect than himself. He notes that this idea must come from something more real and perfect and that it is impossible that he should have gotten this idea of perfection out of nothingness. Thus, this idea must have come from a being purely perfect and possessing all perfection. He says that this being must be God. Thus, he affirms, God exists. Pg 33. He says that unlike himself, God is infinite, immutable, omniscient and almighty and that all good things, including the clear and distinct ideas, come from God.
From the proof of the existence of God, he finally agrees with the existence of the material world. He says that while his body (which he calls an extension) and other bodies and intelligences in the world, are not perfect, they must nevertheless come from God. He says that the being and essence of these bodies depend on God's power and that without God; they would not subsist for a single moment.
Descartes reasons that the idea of God and of the soul is only surely found in the intellect. He says that “the reason why many people are convinced that there is difficulty in knowing God, and even in knowing what their soul is, is that they never raise their minds beyond sensible objects, and are used to think of things only by way of imagining them, that whatever is unimaginable appears to them unintelligible. “ pg 35. By this, he thus differs with the scholastic philosophers like Aquinas who argued that “there is nothing in the intellect which has previously not been in the senses.” pg 35. He indeed doubts the reliability of the senses by stating that, “ the sense of sight gives us no less assurance of the object than the senses of smell and hearing; whereas neither our imagination nor our senses can ever assure us of anything except with the aid of understanding.' pg 35. Descartes, in this discourse, believes that “whatever we conceive very clearly and distinctly as true is assured only because God exists.” He believes that God “is a perfect being and everything in us comes from him.” pg 36. Therefore, in this discourse, he is seen as one who has full trust in his reason and who disregards knowledge from possession, imaginations and dreams. He is also seen a religious apologist who wants to relate the existence of everything to God.
In the fifth discourse, Descartes moves from discussing theories of light of reason to theories about human anatomy. He considers that animals have many of the same organs as humans, yet their lack of power of speech and reason points to the fact that they cannot be equated to humans. Even lunatics and insane people have power of speech he says, and so are the deaf who have invented their way of speech. Basing on the above, he concludes that the difference between the animals and man is a sure sign of the “human rational soul.” He considers that God created the rational soul and joined it to the body and that this connection is mysterious. He therefore deduces that the soul must have a life outside the body and thus, unlike the body, it is immortal. This is because he cannot conceive of any other way the soul can perish. He in fact says that “it is not enough for the soul to dwell in the body like a captain in a ship...” and that ' the soul is of its nature entirely independent of the body and thus, not liable to die with it (body).” pg 44. Thus, although he presents the soul as an independent and immortal entity, he nevertheless affirms the unity of man as soul and body and recognizes God's mysterious power in uniting the two. However, he takes a dualistic perspective that does not concur with his geometrical method. He completely fails to convince about this union, after doubting all sensible things and later affirming so clearly the independence and immortality of the soul
In the sixth discourse, Descartes gives the conclusion of this work. He tells of how he has disregarded the knowledge he has acquired from formal education, affirms that God is “the cause of all that exist and could exist.” pg 47 that is, both the extension and the intellect. He also affirms the importance of his discovery and gives reasons why it is a discovery not only of the present but also of the future, not only of self, but also of others and he considers this to be the most important thing. He states that 'our concern must extend further than the present” pg 49. In his words, he conclude by saying that “ the little I have learned is so far hardly anything in comparison with what I do not know and still have hope of finding out.' Thus, he acknowledges the immensity of knowledge and the limitedness of his knowing. Knowing that some of his ideas about physical sciences are controversial and especially in conflict with the church, he asks his readers to read carefully.

CRITICISMS
Descartes, by following one method of search that is; geometrical mathematical method, shows how organized a philosopher he is. By taking a stand on the point of reason and never turning back clearly affirms that he is a fine and pure rationalist. His philosophy is clear and his first principle is indeed indubitable for it follows all rules of deductive logic. He also does well by endeavoring to fight skepticism by taking such a position himself. This is truly a clever and smart way of fighting the ideologies of such people. He seems to be following some Aristotelian mode of reasoning based on syllogisms, where one starts with a major and minor premise to draw a conclusion. He also confirms his wisdom as a philosopher by admitting that knowledge is so immense that human mind cannot be able to know it all. However, while he takes up a position of methodic doubt, he plunges himself into a quandary for he refuses to doubt the truth of religion in which he was born. He also fails to doubt the truth of mathematics, especially geometry, because he wants to employ it in his work, yet he doubts all other truths. This is absurd, because if he says that he doubts everything, there ought to be no need for excluding some other aspects because he wants to use them.
It is also unfortunate that he disregards the work of other people, all that he has learned. Yet clearly, the knowledge he has, the mathematics that he uses to develop his method is a work of other people and it is thus unacceptable to doubt the works of other people while using them. Moreover, by doubting such knowledge as he had learned it, “he employs a two fold strategy: first by purposely being vague on the nature of these ‘principles’ that his former opinions had rested on; all we are told is that his former opinions were derived from the senses.” Secondly, “he convinces his reader of his ‘theoretical justification’ by disguising it as a matter of practical connivance. Certainly ‘practical convince’ is not very good grounds for ‘justification.’” Thus, Descartes take advantage of his reader's ignorance to support his own views.
Thirdly, it is also unacceptable to deny the existence of the body while acknowledging the existence of the 'cogito.' Yet truly, it is impossible for the 'cogito' to be, without the existence of the body. Indeed, the intellect cannot exist on its own, just as the body. The two are complementary to each other for the existence of one necessarily calls for the existence of the other. Therefore, by Descartes disregarding the existence of his body and even other bodies, he falls into solipsism for clearly; it is absurd to disregard their (bodies) existence. In the same respect, Descartes fail to hit the point by stating that his method can be used in all fields. Yet, reality as we know it comes with different challenges that require different approaches and no one method can be said to be appropriate to tackle all situations. By this therefore he commits a fallacy of generalization by taking one method that works in one field and assuming that it can be employed to all other fields.
Descartes also falls into a vicious circle of reasoning about his concept of God and extension thus committing a logical fallacy. In his forth and fifth discourses, he attempts to prove the existence of God. “He states that clear and distinct perception leads to knowledge, and that God’s existence is apparent and obvious because of things we have come to perceive as knowledge. Furthermore, he asserts that we cannot turn these perceptions into knowledge without the assurance that God exists. Essentially, Descartes claims that God is a necessary condition for knowledge, which in turn requires the existence of God.” Indeed “his argument follows a “vicious circle,” as both premises rely on each other’s truth and validity. His argument is basically dependent on certainty of God’s existence, despite an equal amount of uncertainty regarding that existence. Descartes states that no one is definite about the existence of God, nor can they know anything clearly and distinctly until they are certain about the existence of God. Assuming that these premises are accurate, we as humans know nothing because we cannot say with certainty that God exists.” However, taking Descartes as a devoted Christian, apart from being a philosopher, his argument holds for it is in and from God that all proceed and subsist.
Descartes, by reducing everything to reason and negating all facts of experience, employs a coherence mode of attaining truth which is by far, limited. Clearly, his idea that only ‘I’ exist is far removed from common sense and only arises from his psychological concepts (thinking and perceiving) which are abstracted from his own inner experience. There seems to be no connection between the fact of reason and the fact of experience. This kind of egocentric pursuit of reality goes against the reality itself as it is known, for a reality cannot be independently known, but should be known in relation to other realities. For example, I cannot ascertain my being without ascertaining the existence of others. As the traditional African philosophy rightly points out, “I am because you
Are.” This points to the fact that humanity is intrinsically linked together, and that my existence is necessary because others existence is.
Nevertheless, although Descartes may have confused logic and reality as in the case of God, or may have taken the advantage of his readers’ ignorance as in affirming the existence of the cogito without the body, he seems to have hit the target by giving an indubitable truth of the existence of I. surely, his premises are consistently and coherently bound together in the system he makes that it is difficult to disapprove his first principle. And even though he may be blamed for reasoning in a vicious circle about the existence of God and so other things, it should be understood that apart from being a pure rationalist, Descartes is also a pure Christian who cannot give up his beliefs for the sake of philosophy.