Discourse 5 talks about functioning. God created material things and set them in course, and it is easier for us to understand these things as they develop rather than witnessing them in completed form. God has created animals and man as to function as he wishes. It is reason that proves the independence of humas. Animals can speak, but not reason, and a machine can only be programmed to do so much. A machine cannot be made to utilize the total necessary organs to reason, and animals cannot reason at all. Therefore, animal souls are completely different from human souls. And the sould cannot be derived from the potentiallity of matter; it must be specially created. It must be independent of the body to constitute a real man or else it would be inhibited by the body.
Finally, because their is a God, then their is reason to fear and hope after the present life, and when a person accepts the soul's independence of the body there is no reason to believe the soul dies with it and no reason to believe the soul dies at all.
5 comments:
This is an awesome clarification on Descartes' view comparing animals, artificial intelligence, and human souls. I think it is interesting how Descartes comes to the mind/body sitinction since we can be sure of the mind's existence through direct introspection but not of the body's existence. I wonder how he would react to the physicalism of our contemporary era in which so many bodily function is explained through brain processes, and that they are closely interwoven. If he knew all of this, I wonder whether or not Descartes would still posit a fundamental dualism between mind and body.
Very nice summary of part 5 of the discourse. Like I said in class, I personally don't agree that animals can't reason. I think that animals are better at reasoning than humans because their emotions don't affect how they reason.
eh, I think he is working with to many unknowns toward a preconceived desired answer.
on sandy's comment: How can you say their better at reasoning? If they were wouldn’t they reason a way to the top of the food chain? I'm all for animals having the equal right to life as a human, they can also be smart, especially the apes, but they can't reason better than humans. And I really like stoicism but emotion can have some useful information to add to a situation, they just shouldn't rule that situation. Well, actually I just changed my mind, lol, maybe they don’t add anything. But I am lending toward the idea that existence wouldn't be possible without them because if one were completely practical wouldn't one just kill ones self? Curiosity is an emotion right? If it is I wonder if I could then categorize logic from emotion...? Kind of a rant I know, but what can ya gonna do?
My idea of the way animals reason is closer to what Ibn Sina, the Islamic philosopher said, and I know Descartes was influenced by him. Animals cannont reason the way humans do. This is because their function is different from humans, and the function of everything is bestowed upon by God. Animals do what they are supposed to do depending of what animal they are, and humans do what they are supposed to do, which is reason and pray. This is basically what I read about Ibn Sina, and Descartes may have been thinking along the same way, but was leading to other points. So to say animals or humans are better at reasoning would have to be determined by the goals they are trying to achieve, and the only universal goal is to function as God intended.
I don't agree with descartes on the point that animals are not rational animals. I think that animals have some rationality if not some animals have rationality like humans. Take gorrilas they are able to sign to people what they want and how they are feeling that constitutes some rationality
Post a Comment