The Search for Truth
Reflection on history of philosophy + announcement
Most if not all philosophies from the modern age going forward are characterized by a dual method. First, the ‘making of a clean slate’, and second, the creation of ‘a philosophy’. First, one critiques one’s predecessors, and then one builds one’s own philosophy. To see the truth, we must first do away with the falsities that cloud our view. We have to start over again, and can’t rely on what was said in the past. With Heidegger, he says that Being has been occluded throughout the history of philosophy, and to once again speak about it, we must do philosophy in a new style. Husserl; the life-world has been forgotten by theoretical thought, now we must think it, but first, epoché. Kant; philosophy was not yet critical, we must first do critique, before we can do dialectic. Hume; we need to start over with the new method of empiricism. Spinoza; more geometrico. Deleuze; all prior philosophy was based on identity, we must do away with this, and take difference as our guide. Also Nietzsche; the philosopher was not yet a psychologist. And we can go on. This aspect of doing away with what came before, before one can actually start to do philosophy, this seems so common to all great philosophers, that we would almost see it as an essential aspect of all philosophy.
Can we not see Socrates as that part of Plato’s thought that makes up for this critical phase, before Plato’s own philosophy can be built?
Yet still, if we look at ancient or medieval philosophers, this aspect of ‘making a clean slate’ seems quite absent, or only present in a hidden or veiled manner. Even Socrates had reverence for the gods. All build on what was said before, not thinking it even necessary to mention that one is doing something ‘new’ (however creative it might have actually been.) When Aristotle critiques the previous philosophers in the Metaphysics, even this is portrayed as a building on what came before. This more radical doing away with the past, when does this method enter the history of philosophy? Although maybe not the first, Descartes seems crucial here. Descartes always mentions that if one wants to build a new house of knowledge, one has to first make room for the foundations. Forget everything, and start thinking anew.
“I thought I had already given enough time to languages and likewise to reading the works of the ancients, both their histories and their fables. For conversing with those of past centuries is much the same as travelling. It is good to know something of the customs of various peoples, so that we may judge our own more soundly and not think that everything contrary to our own ways is ridiculous and irrational, as those who have seen nothing of the world ordinarily do. But one who spends too much time travelling eventually becomes a stranger in his own country.”
(Descartes, Discourse on the Method, I)
Descartes is struck by this feeling that for all that has been written and thought before him, however much truth there might be to it all, it has also bred confusion. How is a man to find the truth, in such a diversity of books, filled with such a diversity of opinions? Has not, throughout these ages of commentary on commentary, the truth been forgotten rather than preserved? Like when one tells a story to someone, and this person tells it to someone else, and so on, the story often ends being unrecognizable, having been distorted rather than strengthened through time.
“There is not usually so much perfection in works composed of several parts and produced by various different craftsmen as in the works of one man. Thus we see that buildings undertaken and completed by a single architect are usually more attractive and better planned than those which several have tried to patch up by adapting old walls built for different purposes.”
(Descartes, Discourse on the Method, II)
Descartes says that he does not want to be a mere reformer of knowledge, he wants to start over, and build something new entirely. Never has this first aspect of philosophy —critique— been thematized so strongly as with Descartes. There is a certain arrogance here, perhaps. Yet still, Descartes never fails to remind us that his philosophy is ‘the most Ancient of all’. He wants to tear out the weeds, so that the soil of knowledge can become fertile again. To go back to the source, but to do so, we must first destroy what has made us depart from it.
It is with this in mind that I want to announce a new series on this site for subscribers. We will be reading Descartes’ ‘The Search for Truth by means of the Natural Light’ (La Recherche de la Vérité par la lumière naturelle.) This is dialogue in which a persona symbolizing Descartes seeks to convince a layman of his new method, while a different philosopher seeks to convince this layman of the old method. It is a little read text, but crucial to understand the motivations of Descartes’ philosophy. His reasons for ‘starting over’ with a new method, it is all here. Alongside this theme of ‘starting over’ in philosophy, we will also touch on themes of madness and sanity as they relate to philosophical method. In Descartes’ time, many critics of his philosophy said that his method is somewhat like madness. ‘He tells us to doubt everything and we are left with only a very small number of certainties, ‘I think, I am’, and not much else. This is like the paranoid, trapped in their own head, suspicious of everything outside of themselves.!’ Descartes would always reply that it is exactly the opposite that is the case. You must doubt everything, and you must find certainty in your self. For if you do not, you will be forever deceived by this world. The madness is not in the self, it is in the world, and doubt is necessary to protect us. This discussion also features in The Search for Truth, as Descartes is trying to convince the layman of his own position, while the other thinker is trying to convince the layman that Descartes’ method will make him mad. This is not to say that Descartes himself thinks his own method to be without dangers, as in the Discourse on Method he says that “the simple resolution to abandon all the opinions one has hitherto accepted is not an example that everyone ought to follow.” For there are people who are not capable of directing their thoughts in an orderly manner, and they will get lost in confusion, remaining “lost all their lives.” (Discourse on Method, II.) The method is one thing, but how one goes about it is something else. This is an interesting passage which forces self-examination on us. Are we moderns not in some respects like those fools who, thinking they can think by themselves, have neglected Ancient thought, thereby losing themselves in confusion?
Of course, we will also look at the nature of Descartes’ ‘I think, I am’, and the context in which it appears. What were the problems Descartes was struggling with, that gave rise to his philosophy? As Descartes’ is using fictional characters to express his philosophy in this dialogue, this gives us unique insight into what Descartes’ wanted his philosophy to look like. His conception of philosophy is always extremely practical. What is the purpose of philosophy? To seek the truth, so that we can guide our actions with more clarity, so that we can become more certain in our actions. He seeks not just a revolution in knowledge, but very much a revolution of life. That is, he wants to transform the individual. But what did Descartes hope that we would become, if we were to follow his method? The Search after Truth gives us some insight in this, in how it portrays the character representative of Descartes himself. And it also portrays this conversion from the old method to the new method as it plays out, through the character of the layman being educated.
Very soon I will do a post introducing the text in more detail, giving you some more context, and starting the reading.
I will let you know already that I will be reading from a French edition of the text to be found in volume two of a collection of Descartes’ oeuvre, edited by Ferdinand Alquié:
Descartes. Œuvres philosophiques II 1638-1642. Edition de F. Alquié. Paris: Garnier, 1967.
I will always translate to English when citing text, either from own translation or making use of:
Descartes. The Philosophical Writings: Volume II. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
I will guide you through the text, explaining everything you need to know about Descartes as we go through it. But if you would like to get to know some more already, I can refer you to some previous texts I have written on Descartes:
Have a good day.