descartes and skepticism - m. grene

8/12/2019 Descartes and Skepticism - M. Grene

1/19

ESCARTES AN SKEPICSM

TH HB UB F T is oen ten forte epitome of skeptcism1 Tus Myles Byeat, in b 1982 paper,

Ideism d Greek Pilosopy: W Desces Saw d BerkeleMissed," ues tat Desces goes er e cient skepticsin doubting e estence of is own bodya ven of eveday ee-

ence ey never doubted Nor w te existence of te exteword," wic w impeled by e aency of e eil demon d ee recuently quesoned ever since, a mor subject for doubt inte skeptic trton. v yeat elns esctes w

Coespondence to: Depent of Philosophy, rnia Polytechnic In-stute d Ste Univei, Blacksburg, A 26.

"Hyperbolic is e te Desces ses n eMditatio to refer to

meod of doubt: see O d Dcat ereer, cited thvolume d page number), ed Chles Ad d Paul Te, 2 vols(Ps: J CNRS, 676, 78. Unless oerise indicd, trslationse om Poical Wting of Dca (hereer, "CSM, ctedwi volume d page number), s ohn Co, Rober Stooo,d Dugd Murdoch (Cdge: Cbdge Univei Press, 85.ueroult elns the sicce te: "Methdologic d system-ac doubt, whch is cve d proce o om things but om the reso-tion to doubt oubt which resul om e nature of ingsd c engender skepcism . .. s because of i systemic d gener-ze cter a esee e ne ypoc, accorce wt et-

oo, om ol, excess n hetoc t desiates a gure by wchone gives e object in consderation a hgher eee of someing, wheerpostive or negative, it does not possess n actu Mi uerou, Dcat Piloy Inttd Accoi to t O of Ro, ooger ew (Minneapolis: Univei of Mnneso ress, 83), 2; Dcat lon L' d Raio (Ps: Auber, 68, . ueroult pro-ceeds to eln how this hyperboc chacter ens the nure d orderof e doubt in e t Medion is unfoune that the Cbdgetrslato render "hperbolic "exaggerated, thus missing e technichetoc sicce of e te, which Desces would cey havebeen awe of: CSM, 26.

2 Myles Buyeat, "Idesm d reek Plosophy: What Desces Sawd Berkeley Missed, Pilooical Riw (82 3. On e novelof neeing a proof for the estence of the exe wod, see incent

of pyss ( 999) opy 999 y ofpyss


2/19

554 MARJORIE GRENE

able to skeptiism to ereme bese h doubt w merelymethodologi it le his prosion rles of ondut intat while he

w sehing theoretily for a truth that would ielf be in the rstinste theoreti Of ourse we should not forget that eventuly,Deses believed, the trth he w on the way to disovering would

have exellent onsequenes for pratie so, nely, in mediine,

mehis, d mori Metime, however, Byeat is eyoet in mng that Cesi doubt w indeed insulatednst pratie Hme's dobt would evetuly be so, oned

w to his oset4 So Destes, d other mode skeptis er ould be skepti you like, skepti y oe beThe ient skepti ould not go that f, Byeat gues, beuse it

w dy ife th were oeed with, ot soe purel theoretialgbit ike the philosophers of other Helenisti chols-ugtdifferetly, of oeth wr seeng peae of mind, d they

wted to ate those uneess questions about hiddenthingauses or ltimate" reitiesthat seed to obstt the

state of d they led t" Merely methodologil,doubt beome muh more radi, d it is at radiaaon

that, with the hep of demon, Deses aompishes aont of he diferene betwee Deses' doubt d

the dees of ient skeptiismor its ey mode inheritors, likeMontg or Choyat's eositio s ey orret ine letter, d, f the skepti tradition goes, ey illumi-n ut toug o res btwee ret intret-

ers ofrho or Sxtus, w ta srd he eer interetationo e trdition they to soe extet share oreover we C se

aud, L'esisensa dei coi pncipio delIa sica cesia?" in Dcat: nciia hiloohia (Naples: Vivim, 1996), 1579. i is objeced a in Outlin o honim 75, Sexs does rsequesons abou exte objec, i should be noed ha i is he doas'

eories ha he is eg his is no p of his own skepic gumen inbook 1 grael o isela Sriker for cling my aenion o psage

3 See e refe o the French ediion of the ncil, AT 9() 1. fac, according o Desces' disciple Rgis, whom uerou cies in

he psage quoed in noe 1 aboe, ony natur doub c generae skep-cism here is no such dger n ehodoloic or herboc doub.

See ginal Sktic, ed Myles Byea d Michael Frede (n-diapolis: Hacke, 1996) differen wy of conrting Desces with thecien skepcs is presened by Sephen auoger in recen bioaphyof Desces welI in a paper on cien skeicism Dcat: An Intllctual Biogahy (Oord: Oxford Universi Press, 1995), 09 d he enModes of enesidemus d e Modes of ncien Skepticism," Btih Jou


3/19

SCS SKPCS 555

that Descaes w, n a sense, oeedng to a moe adc, yet (obecause) less th pactc skeptc poston.6

Desces msel nssts on pect o s method o doubt,o exple, n hs eply to the Objectons. Gsend cused hm o vol n the Fst Medtaton doubt; Desces eples

that o couse he ecoes te dstncton beteen the ctons o led the nvestgaton o the tu: onl n the latte c one pusue

doubt he h done.7 He h made the se pont elsewhee,he nssts: the eeence s to the snopss, whee he hd admted that"no se peson had eve el doubted, n pactc tems, that

thee w a wold, that people have bodes d so on.8 Indeed, eveno the less hyebolc doubt the Discoure he had been cel todssh beeen s phlosopc entese d the tentatve mo

ty he ollowed wle pusung t.9

shl e to psae n the Reples n othe contextMetme, howeve, should emk that the se pse c

doubt on ote pect o Beat's gument: nel, that es

ctes hmsel undestood the deence between h o skeptcsmd that o the tadton hstoc schols now nteet t. e

dstngushng between the actons o le d the quest o th, hecontnues: "o when t s a queston o ogng one's le, t woud,o couse, be oolsh not to tust the senses, d te sceptcs who soneglected hum to the pont whee ends h to stop hem

g o pecpces deseed to be laughed at 10 That s pecselythe ccatue o Pyhonsm at yeat othes have been ejectng. w a commonlce, d see no good eon to suppose

,nal fo th Histo of Philosophy 3 (5) 377 auoger gues e cien skepics were no skepics al,bu relaiis. While discus-sion in he Desces book conns soe e semen, he esis seems me on e whole consing rher e gener posionen, wi dierences, by Bye, Frede, d Bes in e oe collec-on appes o me much more conincing in y even, 1 i hebis for my exposiion here.

ha is, unless we e seriously e posiion of Rs, refeed innoe 4 according o while doub encourages skepcism, hper-boic doub in fac preven i: Piee Rs, Ro M Hut, cied by

ueroul, Dcats slon l'o ds Raisons, 4 Rs is cor-rec, Desces w no a skepc al,no even, pmily, roubled by skep-icism. a is in eec wh 1 guing here i sees o have been cle osoe inereers ound ree hundred yes ago.

AT, 735AT, 769 AT, 62AT, 735 CSM, 2243


4/19

556 MARJORIE GRENE

that esces, who w no istoric schol, would not have taken it

at face vue. He ew is own skepticism w herbolic, d thaeveday prctice would no peit he skeptic to go o such ex-

tremes. Tha esces w awe of the naure of cient skepicism now ntereted, however, d of the great novel of the skepticguments he w using, let one of their fael impo for ture

philosophers, that ve much doubt. What wt to adopt omByeat's essay is the pot of esces the hperbolicmethod-ologic skeptc, dstinct from traition skeptcs, whose tropes

were less rdic ecause their intent w pratic. Practic skepi-csm does not quesion the ve existence of the exte wod; it juswonders we have good reon to clm o have cern owledge,or even reonable belefs, about it. Metime, get on with life d re-l Stop strning for a wledge you don't ow wheher you c

have. esces c go her in doubting just because it is no pra-tice he's conceed wih. So he is seen the hperbolic douber,the thinker who rely cries skepticism to i seductive extreme.That is one port of esces my philosophers since is time

have foun luring.Still, esctes w loong for cern, d clmed o have

found it. W he then rely te chskepic? Clely no; raher, Po sclY e rle ave e, e appes, atlet to m readers, the hero who rescued Wese thought om

11 Be seems to hold for eple Desces ew Plo's -guments nst the reliili of sensation in the ats; only evi-

dence i Hobbes's remk at Plo d the cien produced suchskeptic umen d Desces' reply he ows ese e old u-men A 7: 171 Be's rep to objection ithat Desces wouldhave own e Acaica of Cicero eon counicon). what

tex of Cicer Desces would have studied 1 do not ow but in cethe Acaica remks rather vuely that Plato d e academici"disusted sense d prefeed reon. hat hdy sugges detled owl-edge of the attus, Be's text sl seems to me to suggest. dsurely there is no evidence whaoever so f 1 ow at Desces stud-ied Plato. skeptics were Monte d Chon d ough it iprob-ably possible to reconsuct Sextus om Monte's Apologi, t seems

highly unlikely that Desces would ave en the trouble to do so. ndeed end Plemp remked of : "1 have oen seen d have found am who did not red books d possessed none devoted to solimeditions d conding tem to per somemes dissecng "enevieve RodisLewis Dscas: Biogphi ( CLe 1995)1. Desces could well have decld 1 once hed C do "1

unhistoric .


5/19

DEARTE AND ETIIM 55

te crsis f e sieent d seventeen centues, te

St Gerge w sIew te skeptic drgn, r at Iet truilized it frse tme t cme.12 nd e did say s imself. Onl e ade-quateIy reted skepticism: suc w Desctess bt t urdin.13He cey ew te skeptic literure f htime: e wned a cpyf Cn d, GiIsn swn in h editin f e scous,

e ew Mntgne well enug t apprpate my pses mte Essays.14 ndeed, in Desces time y ne w read y-thing ad read Mnte, including te pI fr Raymnd S-bnd," wic reeses te clsic trpes.15 S skepticism f send w cey in te d, ne fund it trubling, in need fretatin. Desces, it is gued, w enterng te y n e se,tiskeptic side: h clm t cern w a clm t ave ver-cme the ni csis s distressing t it w t my f

is cntempes. He did indeed, in h repl t Hbbes, suggest between h use f skeptic guments d te way a medic

wter descbes a mady fr wic e ges n t prescribe a cure.16Tus we ave, nt esces the quintessenti skeptic, still Des-

ctes respndent to te rni csis, in Cureys tes, Des-ces gnst te Skeptics."17

l, must cnfess, neiter f tese gures resembIes te Des-ces believe w, the pilsper w wrte e texts we

teach d se f us study, well te cespndence tat sochly illuminates te tenor of is tugt. That esces ew teseptcs o ay s cey te at e cle to ave rete

the s so cey te Bt w e eiter a ther a septic

1 ee . uey, Dcat ait Stic (bde HUnve Pess, 1978); d Rchd Pon, Hito o Sticim m to Dcat, (New Yo Humes Pess, 964). Pon uses heme of Geoe feence o Desces on e 16.

1 Rli to St} Objction, T, 7:490.1 Geneeve RodsLews, Dcat: Biogpi, 71. Desces, Di

cou d la d,4h ed., ed. GIson s:J V, 1966).1 ee Pon, Hito o Scticim, esecly chs. d 4

1T, 717.1 uIey, Dcat agait t Stic. 1 e of Desces a-en o esond o a Pyhon css, 1 no, of couse, seen oden one o hon d e e w Pyho o eus. Fo he

uoses of essay, howeve, 1 cofess o wn o ae a cen, ea-veIy cons, nd of umen c of adon secsm, con-o e new sec adon eslshed chey by Desces hmsef.


6/19

55 ARJORIE GRENE

e f ind a nke bed b keici w f v-

i vece i? vene g rae, o reind yreade, f i i b n e ggeiona he wneie.18 e ed e f kepci, a kepici e ielfced eblic, in de o acci a ce gof whichoe hol; d he eed kepici, no direcly, or h chiefene, b indiecl, incideno e execn of h own mor,ce nnkeic

Le e i c in wo ve. Fir, w oce Dece' ojec wi a of e keic in ever re-ecfo or ve, depending on ow you con Second, w ok, wih eec o e guen f e ditati in picul,

wha Dece did d did no doub.Firs, en, ow doe Deces' pojec compe wi ha of e

kepic? To begin wih cien kepici w pracic, d so, in away, w is reiv, chiey by Mone; Cei kepicim wreced o inellec enerie: we may ake ha read. Howele do e wo pro die? Conider skepicim abou

enepecepion. The lieae abound wih ces of e unrei-abiliy of e enses; e of he en ropes de from dieren perpecives wi a topic. B i is no he esence of honey, we,

owers, or scks at he skepic is quesiog: by no of h o,he s ected by hemthey e there, gh. y e senses repo their nate in cos d conra ways, so we ad beerjust use hose ts we need o d et on our ives, ratherh ng abou he esence of honey or wine or wha you es

ces, on the oher hd, dismisses or sense percepion in abef pagraph: he mediaor's senses someimes deceive so euld no eonly o poceed o ielf, seaed by e rein h winer dresing go, en, ia he dre gumen, to hedoub of a eengly inien eence, d ly, rough edemon, o he upenion of belief in e exience of heavens, eh,d l. Te, in e Sh Mediaion, wen he resores hose 0s exience, he does menion in pg oe of e clsic insces of

seno conion, bu a i no of much inee o . Why

8 hs oson seems o me domn Fench es schohe jus one ee on m Hen Gouhe, La Pn tapyiqu d Dcat ( J V, 1978), 10.


7/19

difference in emphi? I it jut becaue Dece wt to go

ther d o goe fter? I think not The dierence in tecnique i butone ereion of the dierence in te m of te two ventue. Wat

doe ech d of keptic wt to accomli? Tat i my econd

pont of comprion. Sextu, to take pic of e nd of

kepticim reved in the eventeenth cen, i g h reaer to

be cautiou about ting to eln the idden naure of Hewt to how, through the exple of ene-erceion, tat we haveno cogent reon to clm to ow natu on e bi of ene. And

hen, jut urely, he w how at lng o how v e e

eort of the intellect to reach oe ien "tu. Only miion of

our iorcr perhap of our econ-orer ioce: it won't

even do to ay we do not owonly t son ing u

peace of mind. Sene i l right if it i li to e ace tat

force themelve on u: of oure ene e wt honey. I a perhap it w tte bitter; then peh I won't eat it, wile in the nor

m ce I w. i, incidently, jut te raic ue of ene-per

ception that Decte himelf low when he come to retore exit

ence in the Six Meditation. Metime, owever, in h kepticsoa, indeed, in e whole gument of e ditatios, what he i

doing, he himelf h told US,19 i nig a way to lead te mind

away from te ene (ad t a sibus abducda), in orderto liberate the l-conquering intellect. W wt to defeat

through h methodoloc upenion of belief i e relice of chil

dren, fool, d choolmen on ene e ource of owledge.

Knowledge come only through the liberate, maem mind:

with God' help, it c ow both ielf d he law of at be,tretchedout idenitel extended plenum tat He h created, d

recreate with eve moment So, even oug it i e ene Dece wt to lead u away om, he c ei eience e

ily enough, i order to move towd e o, uly itllu, nd

of eidence on which, with od' l, e e al to y. tat

te project of a keptic, or even of a wou non y trou

e y eat of m R t h

intellctu ie wi pole o y wn t B reda in 1618, ten, in 1620 v n a yic foudaion for h phyi. Ao vn y t,

19AT 72.


8/19


9/19

DEARTE AD ETIIM 56

ces fled to doubtr, om b point of iew, succeeded in notdoubting

My e pot of cott betwee Desces d e skeptictrion, or better, ne two poin, or e poit d a corol,conce te skepcs opposio to doas d doasm is rely rey implicit in my second poit, out e of e

wole enterise, but let me make it even moe obious , ope, itrey is

Te cief of e skepc etese is to discredit dgmata,

e leged idde us of oer poopers, i order to live atpece wi e penomea, wi e demds of eveday. Desces

cief is re b oa, ie t, d to od ey-

ce e nve beiefs of eveday life at t been ldbe d grped wi e speor cer it ords to ose wo

ave successlly completed eir Cesi meditaons Let us looka little more close at e inedients of ese two projec.

First: te object of doubt Te skeptcs doubt e epistemic i-

po of bo sense d intellect Peraps e senses wouldnt be sobad we didnt take em elo: proding us wiforation out e natus of gs tellect is even woe, ow-

ever: just look at e conicting elions pilosope oer of, at d eveg Seu Outlins o Mnism, wicemselves include attacks on pilosopic eoes, e succeeded

by a wole work Against t Logiia, oer Against th Physi-ists, d a tird Against Ethiis. Grted, Desces, too, is at-

ng n mo f a n a momn to o tat e ue skepic deics: but p nst sense-be beliefs, not agnst ntellect. It is estence clms, wic lrely ultimately on senso infoaton, at te demon lows us tosweep de. Cey reon c so go tray; but pilosopersave gued bly in te pt, tat w precisely because ey weremisle by cildis or scoolboun relice on e senses at Des-ces wts to do, n, is to lead te mid away from e senses, to

liberate reon so tat we c see clely te trs at were innatein l of us l og d to complis , e must le s troug

e dgerous ford of metodoloc doubt to e oud of rea-

so. te ave feed to do ts; but, e pt t e Discurse,

e w not doubting for te se of doubtig, like te skeptics, wo


10/19

562 MARJORIE GRENE

e iresolute about eve; b w "to reach cer: to

ct ide the loose eh d sd i order to reach rock or clay."24Of coue, oce he ved at that noud, Desces would

ot have cled what he foud there a "doa i our sese, or eve

i the skeptic sese: that is, opiio about hidde thigs to which

ther opiios could was be oppose. Descares' "trth, he (like

other ogatic philosophe) would have clmed, w the trth, evi

det to all wth sciet isciplie to p it. The poit here, how

ever, simpy that it w the seses ot reo whose authoty

he sought to dee throu the hperbolic doubt. The skep

tics, i cott, were just kee to questio the epistemic powers of

reo of sese, r of y combiatio of e two.

Secod (still o my tird mai poit of compso), cosider the

status of the veday i the two projects. The m of the skeptics is

to liberate the eveday om te cosios geerated by y sech

for somehig hidde, whether suggested by sese or reo or both.

The m of the Ctesi etese is to sweep ide l eveday be

liefs, to cle the mid fr the rceptio, or the serio, of those

tths that ie behid t bloomig bzz of appec. Of coursethose eveday matte wil be reistated i a lesser, merely practic,

role oce the pure itelectu trths of Cesi philosophy have

bee d be: the sef, God, the essece of matea thigs, d their

eence er rened ure gemerc nure Ye r e Ctesi etei, v, psmbly, for its timae issue i practice,

i mechics, mdicie o mori, he appeces of eveday e

ot oly secd, hey e dowgh dgerous. We mst folow a

dicut d circit path, spedig ur rst i thm, ti wereach th highroad f metaphysic cer. Ad they will ever

b what ey were, ic much of them-colors, ttes, souds,

sells-wil have bee withdraw from thigs themselves d

placed frve i itt coer of pre sbjectii. oly seem to

te the sweet of hey r see the red of autum eaves or fee the

heat of the re. How higs appe is relegated to a secod place

2AT 62. O he ut t e ent la Vt ". . a timd of nd evented most men of lete om cq adoctne at w sold d sued enouh to met e ne of scence,

when, im tbeyond sensble thee would be nothn soldeon whch to lace the condence, they built on t sd, nstead of dindeeper, t nd rck d cay AT, 02-3 ( tratin


11/19

SCS SKPCS

compaed to how they ely e, whee o the skeptic, so we

c tell, how they appe s l we ely have, d we had bette not,indeed, cnot abdon those appeceswhich do, Desces,too, admits, oce themselves upon uso the sake o soe de oa hidden eity behind tem. In that limited sense, suppose, it couldbe clmed that Desctes is ndeed moe skeptc about the senses

thon a distinction between what we have come to c pm d sec

ond quities. Yet they e doing o the sae o a dogma, put

ting eo beoe appeces, tadition skeptics woud neve

stoop to do.

So, between Desces d the skeptic tition, te oec

o doubt e dieent, d the stus o appeces is feent. Finly, have ey been suggesting, in eh ce, the m o e

whole entese is dieent: te skeptics e tng to keep us on elevel o the demds o eveday lie d ete the vn sech odogma, o hidden tuth. Desctes is ting to guide us awa om e

eveyday clms o sense to a eective level at which pue eon,

with the hep o God, c ve us secue owledge o ouelves do the matei ceation. The skeptic woud bish the edin

o the sake o the odin; with Desces it is ust the oe wa

ound.My ouh point o compson, o a cool o e thid, con

ces te place o istotle in the two enteses. Fo e skeptics,Aistotle, ong othe, poides usel exples o doatismog not ways ned, he s lely one o the tge o Sextus's

attack on theoes o hysic chge, o geneation d coption, oest, o o space d time.25 Sexts emks:

or yet c we apprehend which eories e ue which fse owin tote equ weiht of e v opinions well e el te cteon d proof. Hence for these eons we shl be le to positivey about time2

2 Outlin of rni, 300-5 Se so fo el Oin ofhoni, 336 whe e i counte on wi Eics ohe onos who have set u oo hene unelievable heos of e. S Be "The S Ple Tie oscussion o e tteli uen on e e.

26 Otlies f honism, 330 oeb trslation.


12/19

564 MARJORIE GRENE

Now it is the Astoteliism of the School tat Desces, too, is at-

tng What he hoped, he conded in ersenne, w h re-ers would abdon eir Astoteliism wiout og tey done 27 The good must keep sect, but that is what editati were out Ves, of coe, hag worked our waythrough em, we would have secure owledge of e existence ofGod (owledge we have ways possessed, rely, even before we

ed our attention properl, that is, in the right order, to the uthorof our Being) d of the re distinction beteen mind d body(which in would ve us good reon, so, to cept what we -

ways accepted yhow on f, the ori of the soul) Thedeepest o d't of the whole und, however, w to es-

tablish the foundations for a new, mathemic physics Scholicphysics beg wit the pncipIe that nothing is in te intellct ath not been in sense; so e relice of chldrn on ir senss avated by the tehings of e School d of Astotle, their hi-losopher That is why the mind must be led away om e snss: to

be led, despite itself, away om Astotle

So tiAstotelis, e the skepcs d Dscs r atone? Cey not Hobbes d Desces or Gsendi d Dscs

were titelis, d no prs of nk could be br ne-mies ndeed, in the ce of ose inimic objecto, so n that othe skeptics: what ey on the one hd d Descs on e orwere er in eir w wholly d ndently drntThe skeptics were ting to dve out doa, includng at of Asto-

tle Desces w tng to undermine Astotle in order to estlsh

h own new psics i its hdwon but forevr srd mtayic foundation28 f he w using skeptic ploy rete sktcism,

he w using them chiey, believe, rete Astoe He could notord to me that m oci t ould b drus rhcy

he would lose h audienced prhaps evn on : t

n Ju 28 11 Desces t to Meee "Je vous en nous que ces Mio coneent to les oneen e m

hsique il ne t le s'il vous lt ce qui avosent istote eent eute lus e icult e les ouve et 'ee ueceu que les lisons s'coutueont inseileent es ncies et eneconnteront vet at que 'erceoir 'ils nt ce 'stote 32978

See Diel Ge Dca' Metaphysic Physi hico Univei o co 1991)


13/19

DETE ETM 565

wt to sk e fate of Gileo. Discreey, owever, e could guide

em away from eir belief in e po of sensepercepon, hemig be able to bng scolc contempores ound to own iew: it w, er l, te t at l en ced witin em-selves. He mgt, e oped at one pot, even be abe to get cip cepted a bs for teacn n te scoos.9 Metme, hope ad been tat te editatio woud bn scoc readers

ond. Tey ad not done so, d e w to be esecily nditat Bourdin's wordy objectons, d te w wi e Jesui" n wic

e seeed for a tme to be eed. To ret to e editatioemselves, owever, teir perbolic skepcism: it is anst

Astoteli docnes tat they e directed, d e suspension oftst in e senses, in picul, te undeg of ristotelimetod . Not, owever, because y doa," y d l

trt idden from eveday attitudes, is forbidden, but because ewrong doa must be abdoned e te dogma is to be ld be

may be objected ta even my gument so f cts doubt on

e ort of Desces te exem, even te extree, sketic,

t dly olds anst e second conception: te pcture of Desces te tiskeptic, te thinker deepl oubled by skepcism, whouses skeptic weapons nst e skeptics temseles. er l, hesd he ad reted skepticism, d he likened imself to a medic

ter ho escribes he smptoms of isee before he prescribese ue. hae for eience is one staemen to his condentcoespondent, that it Asoeliism he out o undeine bhi skepc rou h s rthr li saing tha bcus

ces remked of himself, ome for mked," he ways metthe opposite of ha he s, theist materiist tat, on his e,he rel ser su hlege o m l oul betofo On he one h, one oul repl tht a philosophic e rich e editatio or on more t one level Descesma well be shing retation of skepticism hile a the setime destroying e hegemony of Astotle. Simill, hile believea it is te foundations of pysics ta Desces w er rst

d foremost n deeopn s metaphyscs, so ree wt Gouherthat he c jus el be taken a defender of a osohy

AT 3276.AT 3:103


14/19

MARJORIE GRENE

onsistent wi Coli ft: a gure of e ounteefoation

well of te sien revolution.31 Seond, in the piul eof te o of tiskeptiis d tistoteliis, do te

te stateent to Meenne seously, not only in ielf, but in te ligt

of te overl bent of Deses' pilosopizing. ope the reon fortis beoe leer wen disuss e queson of wat Des-

es does not doubt in e rst Meditation, well in te ben-

ning of te tird. Te stateent tat e w te rst to rete skepti-ism is probabl what e did in fat believe d in e is e

polemil nst Bourdin's attak on the eod of oubt. e e-ply to Hobbes likening iself to a edi wter esribing thesyptos of te disee for wi e is about to presbe a ure isder to e with, perhaps. only say, somewat apologetil,tat he woul not ave aditted is p, tiAstoteli, inpubli nd do tink tat e w a pysii, w e tst in

sensaton e most urgently wted to ure, d needed to ure in or-der to establis te tts e believed e ad disovere.

Finl, ere is one her opson wh the septs of Des-

es' time tat shoul ention briey, d that is te relation ofoub to fth. the iew of a thinker like Monte or Con,stressing hum iore is ill to supporing our fth in re-

ee tth, wih lies beon our pe powers of sense or reon.eses, hoeer, lie b fen Sion, w odent hat he hafound suppor n reon elf for te estene of God, te imatei-i of he , its iorit.3 Raer h mng him-self huml tae of oubt, i ore to rel on f for s guie,

h us b hpoli eptiismre aie of metho-logi eni er to la be the foundaions of rst philoso-ph tslf oon wi, een supporive of, the fth he heswih h sket writr.

So muhpeaps too ufor opsons wi te skep-

tis. Now le m k, briey, wat Deses did not doubt in te

ourse of is skepti proedure in oer words, wat e tose

tings ta not be reeted in is way d e ore en d

better own to us?

3 See Mjoie Gene Dcat ndio He 1998) 187.32 See Pon Hito of ticim. Je de Sion L D Vt d Silho: l'un d Di t d a

pvinc, l'aut d l'immoalit d l'm ( L. Sonni 166.


15/19

SCS SKPCS 7

It h ay eeme to me a g feature of e Firt eita

tion tat Dece c imi picul o much mre eily thgener: once the re gument h oed to conider that

e ay not be itting by te e cad in ter deing go, e

n that ga remn, then more gener, d yet more univer maer, lie tronomy, ny only the most gener of lthmetic geomet, e le Surely my skeptc thinke, atlet of the mitigate vety, oul d generitie much more ubiou t the picul that, o to peak lap u in the face Yet Decae cely h a preilection for e more aer the les uni

ver oreover, hen he come to mathematics, at happen to

erboic doubt? Doe e emon undee ost univer tep in the erie? Not at l He may be deceig u about l the

(ete) eitence e ave ever ccepted; te e, e , dl ee thing e, there i o e noton at soe poer Go, oe nae o not at point ee to o, migt have

mde me go rong henever d to d tee; but tat i a vetentative peculation, echoe in e opening of the ird editation in

the notion of oe Go (alqus D) ho migt thu eceive me(but of coue i not Go himelf, ho, e s oon icover,

oul not practice uch eception) In the d editation reference

to oe Go, a maer of ft, the ogto d e um of to ree ve e plce together item one rely cnot oubt:

Yet when 1 to the emselves which 1 1 eceive veclely, 1 so coninced by em t 1 soneusly decle: let

whoeve deceive me, he neve bn it ot t 1 non,

so lon 1 conne 1 somein; o me it e soe me t 1 have neve ested, since it i now e at 1 est; on it ot that two d ee added toethe mo o less enve, o of is nd in which 1 see a mifest conadiction

Simple metic oledge uch e c intuit at a gce thueem eempt om oubtr at let coud be ced into doubt oyve eyicy" pse sues a ner o qestions.

W 2+3=5 ject to e dot o e t Men? Wee

metic eomet c ced into ot ee Q ve d,

k, e pecuion about wat te meditor beentol about lpoel God, ho coud do g, or l e

A 7:6; CSM 2:25


16/19

8 MAJOIE GEE

doubter seemed to ow at stage. d even tat doubt is

rendered dimmer the Third Meditation pse by e brketing of2+=5 with the ogito. The fact th the demon ccels only estence

clms so reinforces the hpoesis Desces nds it dicult,

not impossible, to suspend aceptce of e trths of th-metic d geometthe ruths at be reinsted e distinc om the Sixth, Meditation.36 How seously were ey everrely suspended the rst Meditation tex?

t let two pieces of eidence pevent a simple swer to tat

question. rst, there is Descaes insistence that aeis ot re-

ly ow mathematics.3 at on eh c tat me? Do they notow that 2+=5? Or do ey not reow the sweep of E-clid, say, because they need the true God to make their memo reli-able? Ct he fth make mistes memo, too? have no

e good swer to question, but onl a hunch that suc -swer would be related to the doctne of the creation of e ete

ts. God made, d is forever remang, the extended word(d of course our minds tat ow it) by a code which we hope is e

one through which we read it, then he made the trs of maematics the se way, d the owledge of them depends, therefore, onour owledge of The second piece of eidence comes om e

lengthy d obscure Seventh Objections d eplies. The psaes uestio e ed b Roger Aew essay on the Seven e-lies.37

Bourdin seve tmes acuses Desces of doubg twod three e ve, d it seems at Desces replies raer wey,

suggestng e nd of doubt put fod e ou or e -ip rather the ditatio: that is, nar" doubt of or rea

On e liions o e eon's owe see Rih Kn"The Finitue o Desces' il Genius Jou of Hto of 321971) 4416. Ken so oin out it is t 1sues t we c out ecs. o so Meiion secon sees to oson to th suson out lowel Go wh is not involv in the eon oesis. e

on o oue w so asent o e Dcoue, wll o . 1 el to oesso Velkl o non to en's cle.

3AT 7:125 41415.37 oer ew "S les seties onses in Dca: Objectl et

Ronr, e. J.M. Besae J.L. Mon s sss Univie e 1994) 1226 1290.


17/19

DEARTE AD ETIIM 56

soig powe. simp coses her what is ey a ve

sig siao t, i poied out i a ote citedby ew, Bor ha got bo e coue o atur doubt d erole o e demo perbolic doubt qte Alqui wtes: " .

. . Bourd believes at, ccog to Desces, judgme fgestece e cled i doubt or solid reos, d judgme ig logic or maematic eidece [e pled i doubt] oly by epoess o e eil demo.

is a strge istig o the th: doub about ths o ietic d geome e metoed ol sideways, so spe, d i

psig, i e First Meditatio; e demo s voked to te doubt

i c go, but oly doubt o "jude g estece, oto ose "loc or mhematc , which e le d

lig d ag, laer e estied oly "metaphysicly, byes "so God Thrd Medtato, coco wih e

ogito, ic co r b duted at l. Wy did Desces otust poit ou ourdi's or? a way, he did, by sayig at he haade cle pricig l itellec, o a pratic

dub- gos r s d i h ce o existececs; bu wha abu ateaics? Tha' us proble, dDesces is ce o c h swer

ol suggs ha s b h plicit swer i ur Tird Mdi sag d ui' t. The do, t us a d, dd suspd stece clms;bu v d suspd i i sipe, direct i ig Q r x, "aphi d

G p d si, c ri, d , sc' rds, so i r," r G , , , r cvr Q r s w peri us re r saic dg v iic d geoe umetme, could e ever seriousl ave doubted e ogito or e s d re, wever ered suc propositios i our

mds: prposits whose e is pl cotrcto? oer

word, cold we ver av doubtd ce d eet dcta o res se Tr o ael or xpl,

, O Philoophiq, . F q, 2:92n.AT 76


18/19

50 MARJORIE GRENE

Desces reds the Sixth Objecto, what thought is, what est

ece is40d look at the otoous cle to by atur lit, eve

beore we have nIy established the estece o a odeceig

God Take, or exple, e caus pcipIe, i its legedly cleargrp o the hierchies o d objective reali i their

coplex iteelatio Morevr, that pcipIe Dsces uderstood i so eled, r xple, he acceptce soe d osubstce etapysics: eve oe e, Desces beived, e dierece betee a substce d its pcip atbutes41 Such distictios d such pcipIes have ever bee cled i doubt, pre

suably because ser the is to ake the d stateet

reeed to i the soe God psage, hse dei etls a plcotradictio ther words, what Desces did ot uestio i thecurse peric dub th prcets reo,hr hir exitei ipr r ir systaily cddui is h xtsis, stec r systti siistatus (te usiss te sixth d editati respectively)

a hav o justied y e guts oeg t xi deceig Gd he ture, d vdbii, itcu

rrr r s h b srey i g l g Mephysic d s a poiter og he y, b ev hperblic, i i uy, ii, iu ug, e h r ur rialiig42

T i , , riy

g r oi st g L , y d gst y vr , h u y ver ged, d ig, vrr i r pii, p ide

just uh h ee dey, r l o ssped eie i, i

rder t esblis e, ly aheic, physicsd tha w

rst r v r sss e p surce

AT 7422 A 570- auoge, the ioaphy of Desces efeed to note 5 aove,

appe to cot eo si to that of Boudin, ng it that atheatcs i a p oject of Cesi doubt Gauoge, Dca An IntUctual Biogaphy, 340).


19/19

SCS SKPCS 7

o owledge. Thus hs new natu philosophy w secuely ouded

in a ew st philosoph. Incidently, he w so pesentig a philosophy consont with Catholic th, d incidently, so, he wcrg skeptic methods to sel-euting legth. My huch is, how

eve, that the st o these inciden gos wet much deepe th thesecond. He w a believing Catholic, who accepted uquetioingly

much o the natu well eveed theolo he had bee aught in

his childhood d youth. He w a well-eucated membe o cotepoy intellectu cicles, who ew the skeptic liteatue well, d

w well able to use it o his own puoses, puttig it deitivelyide when t had done its wok o him. Yet sepocled voca

tion o eeg the tth did not lead so c see, to question the dicta o eon itsel, eithe a skeptic o a thinke deeply

toubled by skepticism would have to do. Rahe, to e in conclu

sion to the wods o ou text, while crg doubt systematicly to

hebolic lengths, he is leading us to "ecoize that ce othethings which cnot be ejected in this way e theeby moe cet

d in eity bette own to us. est my ce.43

Viginia Tch

4 The project of eg wh Desces does not doubt w sug-gested by oger ew a semin on Desces 1 grael so for aice on elier of s per, d o Gisela Skr Mk Giodfor saing me om y more seous eo out cient skeim 1have nevereless commited despite eir help 1 have so me soe

ndmen reply to Myles Byea's comm It os wiout saa 1 hav no d to follow or evn a oo poon of liere onCesi skepcism; fo ose who wt to ow moe of 1 ecommendhe ve deled eaent by Robe Whb, "Csi Skim omMere Possibli, Jou o to o 57 1996) 129 My of rem e cey coect; wheher 1 aee i gener conclusion1 nd t hd to say

descartes and skepticism - m. grene

Documents