Descartes proof, which states that since he can think he must exist, is flawed in the sense that it follows the assumption that some things are absolute. As seen in both Nietzsche’s and Merleau-Ponty’s books, nothing is absolute. They stated that everything was in perspective, and that humanity needed to study what is closer to them, whether it was psychology or phenomenology. The only things Descartes figured out were that he had a reason to doubt and that math and science could help him understand the world. Despite this, he thought he had proven he existed, God existed, and that the physical world existed.
Descartes’ proof was flawed in the sense that it followed absolutes instead of perspectives as Merleau-Ponty’s and Nietzsche’s philosophies did. In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes said he doubted everything in search for certain, or absolute, truth. The first thing he found that he could not disprove was that he existed. He decided that since he was thinking and doubting, he must exist because something had to be doing the thinking and doubting, and that something was him. At this point, he had only concluded that he was a thinking thing.
After this, Descartes realized he had a concept of infinity nd perfection, and these concepts had to come from somewhere. Descartes decided this must be a concept of God that he had in his mind. If God was perfect, infinite, and all- powerful, concepts Descartes had in his mind that he could find nowhere in the physical world, these must be qualities of God. If God was all of these things, then the physical world must be real, because God would not be able to lie with the possession of these qualities. Therefore, Descartes decided, God was not a deceiver.
Since God was not a deceiver, everything clear and distinct in the world was true. If everything clear and distinct was rue, then all Descartes had to do was apply science and mathematics to know the truth. In Nietzsche’s words: “To be sure, it meant standing truth on her head and denying perspective, the basic condition of all life” (2). Nietzsche thought that everything was in perspective, and that all philosophers before him, including Descartes, didn’t consider this. Descartes believed that if he could doubt enough, he could find something that was certain.
What he didn’t consider was that he was only seeing things in his own perspective. He was so sure of his dogmatic belief that he existed that he didn’t consider he could e a fragment of some bigger thing – possibly an evil genius – thus not existing as his own person at all. In addition, he was so certain of his religion that he didn’t consider that he could be wrong and that there was a perfect, infinite, and all-powerful God. What Descartes didn’t realize was that different perspectives show different kinds of perfection and infinity. If one were to look into the sky, they would see that it appears infinite.
In terms of space exploration, the sky could be infinite, but that can never be proven unless an end to space is found. But, assuming there is an end to space, if one were to stand at he edge, it would not appear to be infinite anymore. Thus, from Earth, we are given the perspective that the sky is infinite. Therefore Descartes’ work, like many before and after him, is simply a confession of his unconscious thinking; “Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir” (Nietzsche, 13).
Because of Descartes’ unconscious thought, he thought it was clear and distinct that he was real and that God existed. This made his Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy more of a memoir than anything else. Nietzsche was a lot of inspiration for Freudian psychology, and he believed that unconscious thought contributed to the conscious thinking more than most people give it credit for. Because of this, most people have their own view of how the world works, much like Descartes.
There are perspectives on everything – the physical world, emotions, and opinions – thus, it would be impossible to produce a perfect study any of these things because there are so many perspectives on everything. For an example in the physical world, if the reader were to look at this piece of paper rom the top, they would see black ink on white paper. If the reader were to look at the paper from the side, they would only see a thin, white line. There are infinite other angles – a diagonal, or from the back, to name a few – bute simply map this on a graph with coordinates like Descartes wanted to.
Merleau-Ponty’s modern philosophical movement was centered around Nietzsche’s views on perspective. In his book, World of Perception, Merleau-Ponty wrote about the many things that have changed since Descartes’ time. One of these things was how people thought about the human mind. Merleau-Ponty has a description in his book about having an argument with someone. This person got very mad, and Merleau-Ponty pointed out that people like Descartes, who said that he was a primarily a thinking thing, thought that all of this was taking place in the person’s mind.
But from the physical actions of the angry person’s speech and expression, Merleau- Ponty could tell that emotions were actually a physical phenomenon. “None of this takes place in some otherworldly realm, in some shrine located beyond the body of the angry man. It really is here, in this room and in this part of the room hat the anger breaks forth. It is in the space between him and me that it unfolds” (Merleau-Ponty, 63). The anger wasn’t in the other person’s mind; it was in the room, where it could be experienced by people around as well as the person feeling it.
Another thing that changed since Descartes’ time is the concept of space. “The fields of geometry and physics remain entirely cannot distinct: the form and content of the world do not mix. The geometrical properties of the object would remain the same after the move, were it not for the variation in physical conditions to which it is also subject. Or so it was assumed in lassical science. Everything changes if, with the advent of so- called non-Euclidian geometry, we come to think of space itself as curved and use this to explain how things can change simply by being moved” (Merleau-Ponty, 38).
In other words, the geometry Descartes used when he tried to define the world was invalid in the circumstances he used. Objects actually change the space they inhabit (Einstein believed they bent space, thus creating gravity), which is something classical science doesn’t consider. Classical science was dogmatic in the idea that there are certainties, so it didn’t consider there was room for doubt. One of these so-called certainties was the belief that the universe wasn’t curved. This was a view left over from when people believed the earth was flat. It appears to be flat from nearly any perspective on the surface of the earth.
In reality, the earth is round, but it’s so big that in comparison to people the curve is so slight that it appears flat. The universe is similar. While there is no proof that it is in fact curved, it is a well- supported theory. Descartes was mistaken on many different levels, but he was correct in saying that he had a reason to doubt. Part of his reason for doubting was a recent discovery hat the planets did not orbit around the earth. Descartes wondered what else he believed that wasn’t true, so he doubted everything in hopes of finding something he couldn’t disprove.
In finding things that he personally couldn’t disprove, he deduced that science and mathematics were keys to finding truth in the world. Today, especially in fields like quantum physics, scientists rely heavily on math to create theories such as the Big Bang Theory and Einstein’s theory of general relativity (the theory which states that the universe is curved). While Descartes may have been correct in a few instances, he was istaken in the sense that he thought these things could show him an absolute truth.
While highly accepted, the Big Bang Theory and the Einstein’s theory of general relativity are theories, thus not absolute. “It is not a matter of denying or limiting the extent of scientific knowledge, but rather of establishing whether it is entitled to deny or rule out as illusory all forms of inquiry that do not start out from measurements and comparisons and, by connecting particular causes with particular consequences, end up with laws such as those of classical physics. This question is asked not out of hostility to cience.
Far from it: in fact, it is science itself – particularly in its most recent developments – which forces us to ask this question and which encourages us to answer in the negative” (Merleau- Ponty, 34-35). In other words, the way science is treated now – different from Descartes’ search for truth and certainty – doesn’t actually deny or limit scientific knowledge. Instead, it broadens the extent of scientific perspective to millions of different possibilities. Additionally, this isn’t a question asked to attack science, but a question that modern science has to ask in order or it to make any kind of sense.
From the modern perspective, Descartes’ analytic geometry wouldn’t hold within Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Merleau-Ponty and Nietzsche follow perspectives instead of absolutes in their philosophies as many before them, including Descartes, had not considered. Descartes set about doubting almost everything in order to find truth, but he didn’t doubt enough to understand a world from a perspective other than his own. Nietzsche was the first to suggest that philosophers before him could be wrong in their belief that there could be an absolute truth.
Merleau-Ponty lived n a world where science had developed a lot since Descartes. Art and philosophy had also developed, philosophy from Nietzsche’s works, which caused even more of Descartes’ flaws to be brought forth. With modern science at his disposal, Merleau-Ponty pointed out that just about every school of thought was changing; thus Descartes’ analytic geometry would not translate to the physical world. Descartes was right about a few rudimentary things – his need to doubt, and math and science as a way to understand the universe – but he was mistaken in thinking he could find absolute truth through either of these things.