“I Think, Therefore; I Am… A Savage?”:
An Examination on the “Unsocial” Aspect of René Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum. The ideologies of Descartes and Aristotle, while both pursuing truth, vary greatly on the way that this truth is obtained. While Aristotle believes that truth is acquired through political systems and social, civil involvement in which an individual draws strength from the whole of the group, Descartes argues that the only truths that can be found are in the validation of the existence of the individual. Yes, this certainly implies an inherently “unsocial” aspect to his teaching, but it does far more than that. This does not make an individual inherently social, but it also does not completely remove the individual from society …show more content…
He states: “For the whole must necessarily be prior to the part; since when the whole body is destroyed, foot or hand will not exist except in an equivocal sense” (1). and through this illustrates the worthless nature of an individual in comparison to society as an individual that is removed from society has no sense of overarching purpose assigned to him by nature, similar to that of a hand amputated from the body. This is one of the key arguments made by Aristotle in the nature of man. He believes that purpose above all else is what man gains from affiliation with others, as nature does nothing without purpose. Descartes differs on this matter greatly, claiming that the nature of man is not based on the assignment of the natural world, but simply on the individual’s ability to think. He states: “ I was a substance whose whole essence or nature is simply to think [here = ‘to be conscious in mental states’] and which doesn’t need any place, or depend on any material thing in order to exist.” (1). This means that the burden of thought and of self-analysis falls solely on the individual and their own affirmations of self, and not as Aristotle depicts when describing the “Political Animal”, on the ideals and purpose established within an individual’s involvement in a “city-state” or “partnership”. This makes Descartes theory inherently “unsocial” as man must depend on himself and himself alone to grow into an intellectual being through first acknowledging his own existence beyond the shadow of a doubt, and then expanding his thinking outward from there in order to attempt to validate other truths of the world. However, Descartes is reminded again that validating another in any way shape or form is nearly impossible as there is no proof that the essence and soul that resides in Descartes and makes him human, is also found in
An Examination on the “Unsocial” Aspect of René Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum. The ideologies of Descartes and Aristotle, while both pursuing truth, vary greatly on the way that this truth is obtained. While Aristotle believes that truth is acquired through political systems and social, civil involvement in which an individual draws strength from the whole of the group, Descartes argues that the only truths that can be found are in the validation of the existence of the individual. Yes, this certainly implies an inherently “unsocial” aspect to his teaching, but it does far more than that. This does not make an individual inherently social, but it also does not completely remove the individual from society …show more content…
He states: “For the whole must necessarily be prior to the part; since when the whole body is destroyed, foot or hand will not exist except in an equivocal sense” (1). and through this illustrates the worthless nature of an individual in comparison to society as an individual that is removed from society has no sense of overarching purpose assigned to him by nature, similar to that of a hand amputated from the body. This is one of the key arguments made by Aristotle in the nature of man. He believes that purpose above all else is what man gains from affiliation with others, as nature does nothing without purpose. Descartes differs on this matter greatly, claiming that the nature of man is not based on the assignment of the natural world, but simply on the individual’s ability to think. He states: “ I was a substance whose whole essence or nature is simply to think [here = ‘to be conscious in mental states’] and which doesn’t need any place, or depend on any material thing in order to exist.” (1). This means that the burden of thought and of self-analysis falls solely on the individual and their own affirmations of self, and not as Aristotle depicts when describing the “Political Animal”, on the ideals and purpose established within an individual’s involvement in a “city-state” or “partnership”. This makes Descartes theory inherently “unsocial” as man must depend on himself and himself alone to grow into an intellectual being through first acknowledging his own existence beyond the shadow of a doubt, and then expanding his thinking outward from there in order to attempt to validate other truths of the world. However, Descartes is reminded again that validating another in any way shape or form is nearly impossible as there is no proof that the essence and soul that resides in Descartes and makes him human, is also found in