The Rationalists. Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz.
by Pauline Phemister
; 238 p.)
[Recommendation III / 2011]
[Recommendation III / 2011]
Occasionally is said that time spend on philosophy might appear a waste of time, but I can't say of regretting having spent quite some time reading this book. Although, I also think most from (western) philosophical tradition and history of to appear a much complicated, sophisticated and perhaps also sometimes too frustrating at my tastes. Sometimes I've began introductions for works/texts by Plato, Kierkegaard, ao, but never bothered finish reading any of those. Aristotle, Marx and Nietzche felt more approachable, but on the other hand I probably never considered viewing even a single page of the Kant's theories, or much other from later philosophic writing. Yet, if one ever thinks of such concepts as the good life, or say ethics for instance, there's always a place for some philosophical theory. At least, since the opposite (not to thinking anything at all from those) is far more doubtful a manner and view-point for the life.
Certainly theories (from these somewhat famous 17th century thinkers) presented on Phemister's book aren't too easy or straighforward understandable, at least without much any former education from this. I'll probably also have to admit that with my school basis familiariaty from subject (philosophy) I can't make very logical, or consistent remarks of the books content. It's of course also so that this kind of book, with such complicated terms/subjects like fx substance(s), problem(s) of the human freedom, active force, the complete concepts, the God, knowledge and ideas, etc. (to name a few), requires some time of study to make any thorough sense from. So I'll probably limit this recommendation to a few notions picked from here and there. Some points-of-views or pieces of the thoughts I hope have gained some understanding from. As result, my notions mostly touch the cultural historical aspect. (That not actually on main focus at the book.)
(By coincidence) book from Spinoza's thinking once passed on my hands and that also might have inspired me reading little further from his times - This book in particular about these three rationalist philosophers (Described as 'System-builders' by Phemister). Somehow Spinoza (Baruch S., 1632-77)(1 has always felt more understandable, or closer to my thinking than most of the other philosophical theory. And, also interesting to me, it appears that Spinoza (S.) is fx usually described by identifying the God for Nature at his thinking. According that, the Nature (Natura naturata, on S.'s terms) encompasses all God's attributes (the finite substances, and/or their forms, apparently smthg also called as the modes), God itself (Natura naturans, on S.'s words/terms) appears infinite. And also, acc. that (S.), no other substance therefore can share any attribute with God. (Even if all this sounds little complicated, seen from the present times view it's also pretty 'advanced' concerning the general attitudes and conceptions for the Nature on his own times. Perhaps it's also not surprising that Spinoza's views/thoughts seem later been found of use on 20th century eco-philosophy too, and is at the basis of some theories of modern ecological thinking. However, it can also be noticed that, Acc. Phemister, at S.'s writings the mentioned God's attributes (Natura naturata) contain, not just the plants, animals and human personnels, but as well the manufactured artefacts, and also such things as roads, towns, fx.)
Theories by the other rationalist philosophers are perhaps more complex to refer even briefly on this, so I'm not going to represent them more precisely. Of the mentioned personnel, Descartes (1596-1650) is of course the most renown, and commonly described as a father for modern (western), philosophical 'school-of-thought'. In addition to that renown cartesian 'phrase' (the famous sentences summarizing his view/method, check that from someplace if can't remember that by exact word), Descartes (D.) also has always been connected for the begins of the revolution on sciences, process usually considered having taken place since about 15th century (from earliest).
The observed century, 17th, also is known from (slow) break-through of the 'Copernican world view' (Copernicus, 1473 -1543), which was replacing formerly prevailed Geocentrism(2 from way of the emerging Heliocentric conception about the planets situation and orbiting around Sun. Probably it's also quite justified saying Descartes's philosophic 'groundwork' having had equally as much influence on the later formation of thoughts (or it having influenced a lot for later western scientific attitude and ways of perceiving the world - From how positive or negative light one sees that, of course, is a matter of opinions...). Also is noticeable that S., and also Leibniz (Gottfried von, 1646-1716) developed their own thoughts largely as confrontation (or, as 'antitheses') for the problems arised by that Descartesian 'paradox'; Soforth, philosophical systems of both also reflect similar questions and are often seen as oppositional reactions for that Cartesian philosophy. (...And, for their current status as some important philosophers of the 17th century, both seem only more lately been 'lifted' on appreciation.).
Each of these (philosophers) also were still compelled to keep of presenting their theories very openly during their own times. Mostly from the fear that older, still dominating Geocentric world-view and it's proponents (In practice mainly means the Catholic church) might have judged their theories as heresy. Descartes lived slightly earlier at times than the other two, but S. and Leibniz (L.) too were restraint for to leave some from their works unpublished, L. perhaps by somewhat lesser extent, but – I guess it was also mentioned in the book – some of his works as well appeared only post mortem.
All from the mentioned still enjoyed at least some recognition from their contemporaries, D. even served as councellor for some royals of the time, and was on favor of fx Elisabeth of Bohemia, and by the Queen of Sweden (D. actually died on Swedish court). Leibniz served as diplomate on various tasks as well, and (apparently) also acquired some professoriate later on his life. Spinoza was forced to live more solitary life, but had contacts with number of renown personnel of Dutch 17th century culture. On each's case the socio-cultural background and life histories is perhaps apparent from their thought-systems as well. In passing it is also mentioned (in the book) L. and S. even having met, though only once. Acc. that both had some interest for optics (which also was a popular field of research on 17th century and seems often mentioned having been an integral part on that scientifc revolution). S. appears described have made a regular profession and modest living as lens-grinder, while L. who had the benefit from having academic background on his family lived at more public circles. But, in spite of their apparent differences as characters, this leaves us some freedom to imagine from what kind of subjects the two might have spoken of during their meeting...
Books cover also similarly little tempts for some speculative thoughts (as the mentioned historical conversation). Taken from Jan Vermeer's (1632 – 75) painting (known as The Astrologist. There also exists a collateral work by Vermeer to this, known as The Geographer). Painting (Astrologist) very well 'depicts' some aspects from that period, the beginnings for that Age of sciences. In fact, one rarely happens find a picture that such proper and suitable to represent the main contents of the book. Mostly so, as it so well seems to reflect both the former period of times and that emerging 'new' era. All the surrounding on picture (devices and instruments, ao Atlas) represent the typical emblems from the period. One can also develop some thoughts and interests by just viewing the picture. Is the scientist seeking some new worlds? Why is he such oddly dressed? Is something missing? Is the picture indeed truthful presentation of, some kind 'sign of the times' from this (early) scientific age on it's birth...or should we look that just as a typical well constructed quality work of the famous Netherlandic painting school. In other words, is that a depiction from some actual reality [ :)] we're seeing, or merely an intentionally arranged scene...
It has to said, of course, that none from these 17th century thinkers (Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes) would represent any 'ordinary person' of their times. Philosophy is merely a devotion to aspects mostly bypassed on the regular life. In spite of that, it was a time when such 'rationalistic' theories (or in other words attempts to 'enlarge' the boundaries of the external world and the individual subject) were logical step to formulate and create by these people. It was possible for them to really aim and reach for developing such 'complete' systems of the thought (and rather complex philosophical systems indeed), also (probably) very sincerely believing that this would finally permit explaining the whole essence of being/existence. Such grand wishes – as seen from the view-point of our own times - and even if comparing these for more modern philosophical theory, them probably are seen as rather 'far-reaching' attempts.
Each of them were also driven by some 'ideals', very certainly. What more interesting on this, is that all also tried derive some kind of moral-ethics on basis of their theoremas (Descartes, it's said, never produced a fully worked-out moral philosophy, but he also -as also S. and L. - is said from to 'regard wisdom as supreme good'. And, D. also presented/discussed at least some thoughts from the ethics in general.). Indisputably much from the current sciences and views from the world are still based on similarly manners of thinking, even if the separating centuries have now changed the world for a very different kind. And there is still be a place for moral-philosophy on modern world. ...But, conclusively from these few paragraphs, it's just said noted that philosophy books also make a good exercise for the mind, even if one wouldn't wish contemplate anything that seriously. (But the book actually 'challenges' it's reader just to that) ; (W-G.)
----------
Notes:
1. Life-ages of the philosopher's (and other personnel) on basis of Websters (Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary, 1994 edition).
2. ...As some example from how persistent and lasting any prevailing view (or a former 'universally adapted belief)' can be, it is mentioned that a Wikipedian-entry from Modern geocentrism seems notice there still lately been seen some resurgence attempts of that old Ptolemaiac-model of the universe (ie theory from the other planets, incl. the Sun circulating around Earth). Even on our modern times, a period known as the atomic age, and when there's travels to outer spaces and all the technically advanced astronomic (/astrologic?) science, etc... However, it seems that most geocentric views are creationist by origin, that meaning, they're usually based on literally interpreting some sentences/paragraphs from the Bible.
--
( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )
----------
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment