Nietzsche’s Critique of Philosophers and Descartes’ Method
Nietzsche’s Critique of Philosophers
Text 1: Nietzsche’s Connection
Nietzsche lists the characteristics of philosophers, whom he accuses of a lack of historical sense and a rejection of becoming. He criticizes their “Egyptianism,” stating, “Everything that philosophers have been handling for thousands of years has been conceptual mummies.” He condemns their adoration of concepts, arguing that all we have done is process and not arrive at anything new and real.
In his rejection of evolution, growth, procreation, old age, and death, confusion arises because they cannot capture what is. They blame this on the senses, on the sensible, which they reject. Nietzsche’s critique of the philosophers before him focuses mainly on Socrates, Plato, and Kant. He considers Socrates the supreme example of Greek decadence, saying he adopted a negative attitude towards life, representing a theoretical conception against the tragic vision of the world. This marked a transition in Greek drama and poetry to logic and ethics.
Nietzsche believed the nineteenth century was a decadent age because it admired the modern Socrates, Kant. He saw the triumph of the superficial and naive optimism of Mill, Spencer, and Huxley. He also believed the century had fathered the two greatest modern-day “decayers”: Wagner and Schopenhauer (whom he greatly admired).
The tragic vision, which he used to criticize Socrates, is shown in his The Birth of Tragedy. Here, he describes the combination of forces that brought life to the Greeks, demonstrated in various artistic expressions, both cultivated and popular. He found the best confluence of these forces in the tragedies of Sophocles and Aeschylus.
Nietzsche has in mind the writings of the Greeks and extends his considerations to all artistic creations, all symbolic expressions of the lives of their creators. He distinguishes between the figurative arts, carried out in finished spatial form, and the rhythmic, temporal arts, never finished, needing to be formed in each creation. He discovers that the complete form in each case differs depending on the preponderance of one force or another, which he calls Apollonian and Dionysian. Both are required for any artistic creation.
Descartes’ Method and the Existence of God
Text 2: Descartes’ Connection
Descartes posits that we are not perfect in every way because we doubt, and knowing perfection is higher than doubt. Therefore, there must be a nature of greater perfection than the “I”—God. Descartes defends and proposes the existence of a single method that fits all science. This method leads us to the truth and follows these rules:
- The Rule of Evidence: We cannot accept as true an idea that is not clear and obvious.
- The Rule of Analysis: We must divide the difficulties we face to turn them into simple natures.
- The Rule of Synthesis: We start from the simple to the complex, and our thoughts must be sorted.
- The Rule of Enumeration: This ensures we have not forgotten any of the above.
With this method, we achieve knowledge. However, the analytical method involves a skeptical doubt as a methodological tool to reach the truth. Descartes proposes three reasons to doubt:
- The fallacies of the senses (Descartes is the father of rationalism).
- The failure to distinguish waking from sleep.
- The evil genius (the human mind may err when trying to capture the truth).
For an idea to be true, it must be clear and obvious to avoid confusion. Descartes deduced the existence of extra-mental reality from the existence of thought, “I think, therefore I am,” with a chain of deductions. To discard the notion of a changing idea, thought rests on ideas. There are several ideas, such as innate ones. Among these, he emphasizes the idea of infinity, which he identifies with God.
To demonstrate God’s existence, he uses an ontological argument that differs from that of St. Anselm and another based on the idea of God. Descartes defines the self as a substance whose essence lies in thought and does not depend on anything to exist. He concludes by saying that he defends the existence of God and attributes to Him perfection and absolute knowledge.