Same question, different lives
Reading Descartes’ ‘The Search for Truth by means of the Natural Light’ Part V.
“How can you be certain that your life is not a continuous dream, and that everything you think you learn through your senses is not false now, just as much as when you are asleep?” - Eudoxus (Descartes, The Search for Truth, 408)
How can you be certain that your life is not a dream? This is Descartes’ question. The senses do not give an answer, as Epistemon has tried to show. For the senses are at times deceptive, and we have “good reason always to distrust those who have deceived us even once.” It could well be the case that in general, the senses give a trustworthy image. But what they tell us is not absolutely certain, and thus, they are not enough. We are doing philosophy, we are searching for the truth, for that truth which is indubitable and certain at all times. Half-measures will not do.
By asking these questions, Eudoxus wants to lead the men to search for a certainty offered by the mind, and not by the senses. A certainty offered purely by thought.
Polyander responds: “I fear that I should simply go woolgathering if I tried to consider such abstract matters, for I am a man who has never engaged in study or accustomed himself to turning his mind so far away from things that are perceivable by the senses.”
Again, we see Polyander’s lack of confidence. ‘I am a mere nobody, how could I ever arrive at the noble truths of philosophy?’ It is this lack of confidence that Eudoxus will try to eradicate. You are a man gifted with thought, and thus, by nature, you are capable of knowing those truths most worth knowing. Will it be easy? No. Will Polyander need guidance? Yes. But by nature, he is capable of arriving at the truth. The question is if he is up to the task of realizing his nature.
Epistemon adds: “I agree that it is very dangerous to proceed too far in this line of thinking. Such general doubts would lead us straight into the ignorance of Socrates or the uncertainty of the Pyrrhonists. These are deep waters, where I think we may lose our footing.”
Eudoxus proposes to doubt everything, and search for a truly secure footing. But the men are hesitant to follow him, they are hesitant to doubt. They are afraid. Who knows, maybe when we go searching for this indubitable truth, for this absolute ground of certainty, we will only find an abyss, and we won’t be able to return.
Epistemon’s remark about Socrates is interesting. For indeed, there is something ‘Socratic’ to Descartes’ project. Doubting everything, the lack of certainty offered by the senses, highlighting our own ignorance, and so on. But in the end, Descartes will be very far from Socrates, and in fact quite anti-socratic. This famous saying attributed to Socrates, that he is wisest who recognizes that he knows nothing. Descartes is quite disgusted by such an attitude. Descartes seeks knowledge, and this ‘I know nothing’ attitude of philosophy as portrayed by Socrates, he hates it. To live is to act, and to act well, we need to know what we are doing. But if we know nothing? Well, we won’t be able to live. And in this way, the questioning characteristic of Socratic philosophy, it is quite anti-life for Descartes. This attitude ‘I am wisest because I know nothing’, it represents all the ways in which philosophy can go wrong, all the ways in which it can renounce its true purpose —to offer a secure ground from which we can act and live with certainty. For Descartes, man is connected to the truth by nature. Man has knowledge of certain things, things which can not be questioned. We will see what these things are. These things are absolutely certain, and there is nothing worse than these philosophers like Socrates, who approach people intending to destroy their natural confidence which has them know that they posses the truth.
Now the relation between Descartes and Socrates, it is complex. Descartes intended to write a text praising Socrates, but only some notes on it remain. So Descartes of course highly valued the Socratic moment in philosophy, this start of this extreme questioning, and more in particular, this start of man questioning himself, seeking for the certainty of himself. But that this would lead to these dark waters in which we know nothing, and that this would mean wisdom. No no, this is not Descartes.
Now Eudoxus answers the doubts of the men:
“I confess that it would be dangerous for someone who does not know a ford to venture across it without a guide, and many have lost their lives in doing so. But you have nothing to fear if you follow me.”
Interesting, indeed, Eudoxus agrees with the others. This radical questioning, it is dangerous, if you don’t know what you are doing. It is not enough to question, you have to know how to question. And, you have to know when to question. In Descartes’ Discourse on the Method, he warns that not everyone should proceed with his method of absolute doubt. We read:
“Those on whom God has bestowed more of his favours will perhaps have higher aims; but I fear that even my aim may be too bold for many people. The simple resolution to abandon all the opinions one has hitherto accepted is not an example that everyone ought to follow. The world is largely composed of two types of minds for whom it is quite unsuitable. First, there are those who, believing themselves cleverer than they are, cannot avoid precipitate judgements and never have the patience to direct all their thoughts in an orderly manner; consequently, if they once took the liberty of doubting the principles they accepted and of straying from the common path, they could never stick to the track that must be taken as a short-cut, and they would remain lost all their lives. Secondly, there are those who have enough reason or modesty to recognize that they are less capable of distinguishing the true from the false than certain others by whom they can be taught; such people should be content to follow the opinions of these others rather than seek better opinions themselves.” (Descartes, Discourse on the Method, II.)
Interesting. Not everyone can apply the same method. Descartes’ method, it is only for the few. And if everyone would try to adopt it, disaster would follow. Be modest, know yourself, before you attempt to abandon all your opinions in searching for the truth. For chances are, that you won’t find the truth, but merely an abyss.
I am reminded of a fragment by Nietzsche:
"The terrible consequence of “equality"- finally, everyone believes he has a right to every problem. All order of rank has vanished." (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, §860.)
Not all philosophical problems are open for everyone to entertain. This problem of an absolute truth, not based in opinion, but purely in thought. To even begin to entertain it, it requires a strong mind to begin with, a strong thought. And, a strong life. Most can only think by way of opinion, take their opinions away, and nothing remains. This is one fault we are prone to make in philosophy, to think that there is ‘one method’ to be used for everyone. But there are as many different ways of thinking as there are types of humans, and not every type should believe it can think in the same way.
Powerful thoughts can only be thought by equally powerful thinkers.
Nietzsche says that “if philosophy ever manifested itself as helpful, redeeming, or prophylactic. it was in a healthy culture. The sick. it made ever sicker.”(Nietzsche, philosophy in the tragic age of the Greeks.)
Now, ‘a culture’ is only a way in which life lives, a way in which a certain type of life chooses to live and express life. And all these questions of philosophy; “what is truth?”, “what is freedom?”, and so on. When these questions are asked by a healthy life, a life in ascent, these questions give life, they are the result of power. But when life is sick, weary of itself, and it then asks, “what is truth?” You see, these are two entirely different questions. The same question, but entirely different effects, the power of these questions is entirely different. In the first case, the organism is strong, and it can bear the question, and whatever stress the question might put on the organism, however large this problem might be, the thinker is ready. He is ready for the burden, and it offers a beneficial stress on him that makes him grow. But the weak, the sick, when this same question comes to them, it is grown from weakness, from a depressive state, and it is too much, it can break a man.
When Descartes asks, “what is the truth?”, this is entirely different from when the average “philosopher” asks the same question. And when a healthy culture asks “what is freedom?”, it is entirely different from when a sick culture like our own asks this question. And the outcome of the question will be entirely different, depending on the life that asks the question. Questions can make life grow, give power to life. But questions can also weaken and even destroy life.
You wouldn’t attempt to raise your bodyweight overhead if you have never lifted anything in your life. And you wouldn’t attempt to run a marathon if you have never ran a single mile in your life. Likewise, you shouldn’t attempt to take on all questions. You have to be ready. And if you go there before you are ready, you might just destroy yourself.
In all, it comes down to which life is doing the questioning. Is it a strong and powerful life, certain in itself, questioning out of a surplus of power? Or is it a weak life, secretly desiring its own undoing, questioning out of a lack of power?
Such is Nietzsche’s question, and it is also, Descartes’ question.
We can ask “what is the purpose of this life?” But who asks this question? The depressive and suicidal organism, sitting in the dark, weary of life? Or the man who has just ascended a mountain, wondering at the beauty of existence?
Are the men in our dialogue ready for the search for truth? Perhaps not, but they should not fear, Eudoxus says, for they are accompanied by a guide. “You have nothing to fear if you follow me.”
Fear cannot hold philosophy back. Eudoxus tells us why:
“Just such fears have prevented most men of letters from acquiring a body of knowledge which was firm and certain enough to deserve the name ‘science’. Supposing that there was no firmer basis for their opinions other than things perceivable by the senses, they have built upon sand instead of digging further down to find rock or clay.”
Eudoxus/Descartes likes to see himself as an explorer, a man daring to go where most others are afraid of going. They say they do philosophy, that they search for the truth, but the really hard questions, like the question for absolute certainty, they don’t want to go there, afraid that they will lose their mind.
And thus they are satisfied with the unimportant questions, about those truths that don’t really stir up anything, that don’t harm anyone, and make sure everyone can keep doing philosophy in a comfortable manner, not fearing to be at odds with state and common opinion. And for the hard questions, when they do raise their head, they are satisfied with giving a half-answer, just to make sure the question goes away. “Where is absolute certainty to be found? In the senses.” Even though everyone knows that the senses deceive us every now and then. There goes the ‘absolute’, but it does not matter, we can evade the question for now.
“So we must not let the matter rest here, especially since even if you did not wish to give further consideration to the arguments I have stated, the arguments have already done what I desired: their chief effect has been to touch your imagination so as to make you fear them. For this indicates that your knowledge is not so infallible as to prevent your fearing that these arguments will undermine its foundations by making you doubt everything.”
As of now, Eudoxus has not proven anything. Yet his aim has already been achieved. The men are afraid of asking the questions he wants them to ask, and this shows him all he needs to know… they are unsure about their opinions, for otherwise they would not fear their dissolution. This confidence they supposedly have in their beliefs, it is fake, weak. And it has already been affected, before any real argument has even been brought in to the contrary.
Eudoxus now says something beautiful and reassuring:
“But in case you should now lack the courage to proceed any further, I would advise you that these doubts, which alarmed you at the start, are like phantoms and empty images which appear at night in the uncertain glimmer of a weak light: if you flee from them, your fear will follow you, but if you approach as if to touch them, you will find nothing but air and shadow and you will be more confident the next time such an encounter may occur.”
The only way out of the fear, is through it.
And so Polyander agrees, proposing that he will doubt everything.
“I shall apply my mind to the task of doubting whether I have not been dreaming all my life.”
Eudoxus now asks Polyander:
“Now, you see that you can reasonably have doubts about everything that you know only by means of the senses. But can you ever have doubts about your doubt, and remain doubtful whether you are doubting or not?”
You see, whether this absolute questioning is fruitful or not, it depends on how we undertake it. Do we undertake it on the basis of this confidence, that despite our doubts, we are certain that we are doubting. This is the difference between doubting oneself into darkness, or into light. Whether one doubts on the basis of this first certainty —that we are and that we are certain that we are, that we are doubting and that we are certain that we are doubting.
Polyander does not agree straight away. Rather, he says that the question strikes him with “amazement.” He says:
“The modicum of insight I possess (which gives me a good amount of good sense) makes me see with some astonishment that I am forced to confess that I know nothing with any certainty, that I am doubtful about everything and certain about nothing.”
A modest Socrates. Because I have good sense, I know that I know nothing with any certainty. He goes on:
“But what do you want me to infer from this? I do not see how this universal amazement can be of any use, nor do I see how this sort of doubt can be a principle which gets us very far.”
This is precisely what Descartes’ idea will consist of; in many ways, thought is nothing but questioning. The ability to doubt, to think about things, to put things into question. And from this, Socrates and everyone in his wake has inferred that the most well-thinking among us, know that they know nothing. For the most well-thinking among us, are able to question everything, and thus, even their own thinking. But Descartes will say, ‘no, you think, you doubt, but you have not been thinking hard enough.’ Doubt, if truly pursued to the very end, leads to certainty. But only, remember, if undertaken by a clear and confident mind. Not everyone should start doubting, for the consequences could be disastrous. Are we ready? Perhaps not, but we are guided by Descartes, so we go on.
Eudoxus: “Just give me your attention and I shall conduct you further than you think. For from this universal doubt, as from a fixed and immovable point, I propose to derive the knowledge of God, of yourself, and of everything in the universe.”
And here comes the famous proof:
Eudoxus: “You cannot deny that you have such doubts; rather it is certain that you have them, so certain in fact that you cannot doubt your doubting. Therefore it is also true that you who are doubting exist; this is so true that you can no longer have any doubts about it.”
Polyander: “I quite agree with you on that point, because if I did not exist, I would not be able to doubt.”
Eudoxus: “You exist, therefore, and you know that you exist, and you know this just because you are doubting.”
Polyander: “All of this is quite true.”
I doubt, I am. I think, I am.
What I find interesting in this interaction, is that Eudoxus displays Polyander’s prior position —that universal doubt leads only to the knowledge of our own ignorance, the Socratic idea— as an immature position. If you think that doubt only leads to the certainty that you are certain of nothing, all you have proven is that you weren’t doubting hard enough, that you weren’t thinking hard enough. If you were, you would know that you are effectively certain about something, namely, of the fact that you are doubting. If you think about it, there is something quite stupid about this claim “I doubt and therefore I am certain of nothing.” “I am doubting, I am doubting, I am certain of nothing.” Yet, you are doubting, have you forgotten this? Are you not certain of this? That for all your “I doubt and therefore I know nothing”, you are still there, doubting and thinking?
Polyander’s earlier claim: “I am doubtful about everything and certain about nothing.” For Descartes, this claim is like a contradiction or a paradox. For you say one thing, —that you know nothing—, but the saying of this has not thereby made it so that you are not doubting, and not existing. You can say that you doubt everything as much as you want, but you will still be doubting, and you will still be existing. Even the most powerful expression of uncertainty, carries within it this first certainty that is always present —that you are thinking, and that you are.
This is all related to Descartes’ advice that not everyone should undertake universal doubt, for some will end up just going mad. Many will doubt, and not finding a ground of certainty underneath their doubt, they will bathe in complete ignorance. Only few will be able to doubt, and actually reach certainty through this doubt. Most are so stupid, that they can doubt, and being swept away by their doubt, they will forget that for all this they remain certain of their doubt.
How is it, that some can entertain universal doubt, and arrive at certain truths? And that others entertain universal doubt, and it only drags them into a deep dark hole of ignorance?
From Dostoevsky we have the story of the Underground Man. A spiteful individual, who professes that he knows nothing, has no certainty about anything. In many ways, this Man is an example of those people who shouldn’t undertake universal doubt.
His life is so fragile, he hates himself, and when he goes about doubting, he does so out of weakness. With no desire whatsoever in him to actually find the truth. Moreover, he would never want this certainty to be found through doubt to be his own existence. He wants nothing to do with his own existence, he hates himself, he wants to flee himself.
He considers himself as the most intelligent person he knows, and precisely this is his sickness, for he considers intelligence and consciousness as a sickness. You see, when a normal person (what the Underground Man calls spontaneous people and men of action) wants to act, he has to be relatively firm in his convictions before he acts. If I want to act a certain way, I have to believe that this is the right way to act before I can do so. If I want to proclaim the truth of a certain idea, I have to first believe that this idea is in fact true. In order to act, there has to be an end to a prior process of reasoning or questioning. When this has ended, I have achieved certainty and doubt has been silenced, so that I can now act. I have to be certain of things, in order to live.
But the Underground Man is incapable of arriving at truth. Because of his intelligence, he never comes to silencing his doubts and questions. Where a normal person might see a solution to a question, or a certainty on which one can act, the Underground Man sees only more problems, ad infinitum. As he explains:
"I repeat, I stress: all spontaneous people and men of action are active because they are dim-witted and narrow-minded. How can this be explained? Well, here's how: because of their narrow-mindedness they take the most immediate and secondary causes to be primary, so they are convinced more quickly and easily than others that they have found the incontrovertible foundation for their action, and that's it, they've calmed down, and that, after all, is the main thing. For in order to take the first step, you must be completely calm beforehand, with no doubt whatsoever. So what about me? How am I to calm down? Where are the primary causes I can depend on, where are the foundations? Where am I to get them? I get to thinking, and as a result every primary cause immediately drags in yet another primary cause, even more primary, and so on to infinity. That is precisely the essence of all consciousness and thought.” (Fyodor Dostoevsky, Notes from the Underground, 29)
Now reading this story, it is easy to forget the circumstances in which this man thinks. It is easy to forget the life that he lives. He lives an isolated life, he is lonely, he is fatally ill, something with his liver, and he lives off of his hatred for the well off. He is a weak and spiteful creature. What good philosophy could come out of such a man?
You see, he benefits from ‘knowing nothing’, as it is only a way for him to escape his own miserable existence. Why would we ever trust the thoughts that come from such a miserable creature?
In the Meditations, Descartes describes the circumstances in which one should undertake universal doubt. He tells us that he has been putting the task off for quite some time, there were more pressing issues. He knew that it was “necessary, once in the course of my life, to demolish everything completely and start again right from the foundations if I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last.” But, Descartes had other things to do, too many stresses in his life. And so he put the project off, until he was able to rid his mind of all worry and had a clear stretch of free time available. There was a basis of leisure, an absence of stress, which guaranteed that Descartes’ inquiry would be an honest search for truth, not influenced by some desire to flee from his own life, or colored by the stresses of his day-to-day life. When a scientist is looking through a microscope to study some organism, he must make sure that the glass is clear, not polluted by anything. No bacteria from previous investigations present, completely sterile, so he can make clear observations about the organism at hand. Likewise, when the philosopher starts to investigate himself, he wants to do so on the basis of a prior clarity. His life must be free from stresses, from incentives, and so on. His life, the basis on and from which the question will be asked, must be prepared first, it must be ready. It must be strong enough to survive even the most powerful of doubts and questions. His life must be strong enough to survive the questioning of his own life.
Not everyone has a right to every problem. And the deepest of philosophical problems, they should only be engaged by lives being able to handle the problems in a clear manner. Lives that won’t throw their emotional baggage onto the problems, and that won’t engage with the problems to flee from their own life. Perhaps what is needed is this cold eye of science. But this eye will never be achieved, if the living personality is left to the side.
“How much truth can a certain mind endure; how much truth can it dare? —these questions became for me ever more and more the actual test of values.” Writes Nietzsche.
This is one problem with the ‘democratization’ of philosophy, through academia and general education. Everyone is pushed to think about the deepest of questions, and it is believed that everyone can have a say in them. Don’t they concern us all? Doesn’t the nature of truth, concern us all? Doesn’t the nature of the soul, or of freedom, concern us all? Of course, these things concern all of us. But only certain natures should concern themselves with them. What you have now is insecure children, going through the stresses of generational malnutrition and teenage anxieties, engaging in the deepest of questions. How could such organisms ever offer a clear answer? How could it be expected that such organisms, survive the weight of these questions? Let the immature think about the nature of the soul, and there will be no soul left. For perception too, is a matter of development, an object of learning. And finer realities can only be perceived by refined eyes.
Descartes had already accumulated his powers, and when he started doubting, he did so from a position of power. What sense is there, in critiquing him from a position of poverty? It is one question, but different lives asking it. And as Descartes tells us, it is the strength of the life, that will determine the quality of the answer. What life is doubting? The life that is doubting on the basis of this natural confidence in itself, or the life seeking to flee from itself?
“What sort of philosophy one chooses depends, therefore, on what sort of man one is; for a philosophical system is not a dead piece of furniture that we can accept or reject as we wish, it is rather a thing animated by the soul of the person who holds it.” -Fichte