This day only occurs every four years…
Plan for This Evening
- Putting Descartes before the Horse
- “Red and Black” (Les Misérables selections)
- “Do You Hear the People Sing”
- “The blood of the martyrs / Will water the meadows of France”
- Compare to Thomas Jefferson’s famous quotation:
- And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. (Letter to William Stephens Smith 1787)
Descartes’ Discourse on Method
Well, Descartes (usually pronounced day–cart) is certainly sure of himself…or is he? Besides being well known in Western Civilization for cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore, I am”), Descartes is important for math (Cartesian coordinate system) and the scientific method. More importantly for us, though, is that he’s (nearly) the last one who thinks linearly…
I think Descartes is a proto-solipsist (here’s a link to a contemporary discussion of solipsism). Although he’s certainly no nihilist, he thinks that one can know best when one doesn’t have the “noise” of other thinkers (thought is much simpler when you don’t have to deal with the opinions of others…). However, even though he believes he has THE idea of reality that applies to all people, he is concerned with his own way of knowing. Unlike the 19th- and 20th-century existentialists, he thinks that his way of knowing is universal and others will get to his conclusion…eventually.
Some Questions to Guide Us
What can Descartes teach us about rhetoric? I think we have to think about epistemology first and then try to answer how Descartes might answer these questions:
- From where does knowledge come?
- How can we best discover knowledge?
- Who are knowledge authorities?
- What is the role of education (the Schools) in creating and disseminating knowledge?
- How can one know the world around them?
- This link has a nice summary of “internalism and externalism” using Descartes’ perspectives.
Specifics from the Book
I know we have various translations/editions, but I’ve linked to the quotations online. Any discrepancies in translation are also places to consider.
Descartes attempted to replace the Ancient philosophers’ teaching (namely, Plato’s and Aristotle’s) with his much simpler one. Here are some highlights:
- Descartes on the history of philosophy:
- I will say nothing of philosophy other than this: once I saw that it had been cultivated for several centuries by the most excellent minds which had ever lived, and that, nonetheless, there was still nothing in it which was not disputed and which was thus not still in doubt, I did not have sufficient presumption to hope to fare better there than the others. Considering how many different opinions, maintained by learned people, philosophy could have about the same matter, without there ever being more than one which could be true, I reckoned as virtually false all those which were merely probable. (“Discourse 1,” para. 11)
- Different Translation:
I shall say nothing about philosophy, except that, seeing that it has been cultivated by the very best minds which have ever existed over several centuries and that, nevertheless, not one of its problems is not subject to disagreement, and consequently is uncertain, I was not presumptuous enough to hope to succeed in it any better than others; and seeing how many different opinions are sustained by learned men about one item, without its being possible for more than one ever to be true, I took to be tantamount to false everything which was merely probable. (Trans. Sutcliffe, p. 32)
- The benefit of one thinker:
Among these, one of the first was that I noticed myself thinking about how often there is not so much perfection in works created from several pieces and made by the hands of various masters as there is in those which one person has worked on alone. (“Discourse 2,” para. 1) - …it is almost impossible that our judgments are as pure and solid as they would have been if we had had the total use of our reason from the moment of our birth and had never been led by anything but our reason. (“Discourse 2,” [bottom of] para. 1)
- …a plurality of voices is not a proof worth anything for truths which are a little difficult to discover, because it is far more probable that one man by himself would have found them than an entire people. (“Discourse 2,” [bottom of] para. 4)
- Three or Four Maxims for a “provisional moral code”
- Obey laws and customs of my country; obey the church (Discourse 3, para. 2; Trans. Sutcliffe, p. 45)
- Be firm and resolute in my actions; don’t follow doubtful opinions (Discourse 3, para. 3; Trans. Sutcliffe, p. 46)
- Conquer myself–not fortune; change my desires–don’t order the world (Discourse 3, para. 4; Trans. Sutcliffe, p. 47)
- Choose the best occupation–devote my life to cultivating my reason (Discourse 3, para. 5; Trans. Sutcliffe, p. 48)
- Reject all doubt:
I wanted only to carry out research into the truth, I thought I must do the opposite and reject as absolutely false everything about which I could imagine the least doubt, in order to see if there would be anything totally indisputable remaining after that in my belief. (“Discourse 4,” para. 1) - Knowledge of perfection:
I concluded that the idea had been put in me by a nature which was truly more perfect than I was, even one which contained in itself all the perfections about which I could have some idea, that is to say, to explain myself in a single phrase, a nature which was God….it must of necessity be the case that there was some other more perfect being, on whom I depended and from whom I had acquired all that I had. (“Discourse 4,” para. 4) - Laws of Nature Universal:
I made known the laws of nature, and without basing my reasoning on any principle other than the infinite perfections of God, I tried to demonstrate all of these laws about which one could entertain any doubts, to show that they are such that, although God could have created several worlds, there would not be one where these failed to be observed. (“Discourse 5,” [middle of] para. 2) - True reasons vs. Verisimilitudes (probabilities)
so that those who do not understand the force of mathematical proofs and who are not accustomed to distinguishing true reasons from probable reasons do not venture to deny this matter without examining it, I wish to advise them that this movement which I have just explained is as necessarily a result of the mere arrangement of the organs which one can see in the heart with one’s own eyes and of the heat which one can feel there with one’s fingers and of the nature of blood which one can recognize from experience, as the movement of a clock is necessarily a result of the force, the placement, and the shape of its counter-weights and wheels. (“Discourse 5,” [bottom of] para. 6) - Even morons can form sentences:
For it is really remarkable that there are no men so dull and stupid, including even idiots, who are not capable of putting together different words and of creating out of them a conversation through which they make their thoughts known; by contrast, there is no other animal, no matter how perfect and how successful it might be, which can do anything like that. (“Discourse 5,” [middle of] next to last para.) - Technological discovery:
my notions had made me see that it is possible to reach understandings which are extremely useful for life, and that instead of the speculative philosophy which is taught in the schools, we can find a practical philosophy by which, through understanding the force and actions of fire, water, air, stars, heavens, and all the other bodies which surround us as distinctly as we understand the various crafts of our artisans, we could use them in the same way for all applications for which they are appropriate and thus make ourselves, as it were, the masters and possessors of nature. (“Discourse 6,” para. 2) - Science (medicine) will continue to advance and cure our ills:
But without having any design to denigrate it, I am confident that there is no one, not even those who make a living from medicine, who would not claim that everything we know in medicine is almost nothing in comparison to what remains to be known about it and that we could liberate ourselves from an infinity of illnesses, both of the body and the mind, and also perhaps even of the infirmities of ageing, if we had sufficient knowledge of their causes and of all the remedies which nature has provided for us. (“Discourse 6,” para. 2) - Knowledge begets knowledge:
it is almost the same with those who discover truth little by little in the sciences as it is with those who, once they start to become rich, have less trouble in making large acquisitions than they did previously, when they were poorer, in making much smaller ones. (“Discourse 6,” para. 6)- Is it just me or is this a contradiction? Maybe I’m just thinking about technology as a group problem to be solved…
- Illuminating the contemporary intellectual conflicts:
However, their way of practising philosophy is extremely comfortable for those who have nothing but really mediocre minds, for the obscurity of the distinctions and the principles they use enables them to speak of everything as boldly as if they understood what they were talking about and to defend everything that they state against the most subtle and skillful minds, without anyone having the means to argue against them. In this it strikes me they are similar to a blind man who, in order to fight on equal terms against someone who can see, makes him come into the bottom of some really obscure cave. And I can state that such people have an interest in my abstaining from publishing the principles of philosophy I use, because, given that they are very simple and very evident, if I published them, I would be doing roughly the equivalent of opening some windows and bringing the light of day into this cave where they have gone down to fight each other. But even the best minds have no occasion to want to know these principles. (“Discourse 6,” middle of para. 6) - We need to talk about Descartes the Science Fiction writer–he’s talking about robots! (p. 32 in Donald Cress; p. 74 in Sutcliffe)
Descartes believes he can advance a philosophy that explains all…what’s the assumption in that?
Here’s a link to papal infallibility and ex cathedra.
Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables
While I read this book over Winter break one year, I thought about all I knew regarding France, French History, European history, etc., and I realized that philosophy and philosophers always played a major role in the narratives I’ve absorbed. The French Revolution was a HUGE deal. Ok, that’s obvious, but Hugo’s book seems to capture the difference in society after the Revolution. It’s fallacious to think that all history leads ideally to the present as if it were staged, but we (historians included) can’t help but think about history as progressing. Perhaps there’s a rhetoric of history that conveys a progressive narrative…
Anyway, Descartes is a major influence on French/European thinking (again, probably obvious). Although Hugo’s novel, which came out in (1862), isn’t responding to Descartes’ Discourse on Method (1637), he’s capturing an essence of French intellectual thought in the context of post-Waterloo (1815) Europe, which had the monarchs of the Continent on notice. One theme of the novel is to question the fate of Europe that has broken so abruptly with the past. The French Revolution and aftermath are a turning point–perhaps not to the “inevitable” step towards democracy but towards less of an assumption of the divine authority of a single leader. Hugo demonstrates that an individual, Jean Valjean, can be redeemed (acquires salvation), which suggests that France and Europe can also be redeemed. However, there’s a wrinkle at the end of the novel that points to the slave trade in the United States, and I read that as a “don’t hold your breath” moment for the audience. I’ll avoid any spoilers, but the novel ends differently from the musical.
While reading Les Misérables, I was thinking about how to work it into the Descartes reading. I wasn’t going to assign the 1463-page book! But I wanted to consider the ideology that made this book possible and perhaps act as a bridge to postmodern philosophies. Of course, I know you’re going to ask, “what do wars in Europe have to do with the world today?” Maybe this is a digression not worth our time, but we’re all in this for the sake of thinking, so we’ll get something out of it. After all, novels (as are people, technologies, ideas, etc.) are products of the society from which they come…we are what we eat. (Think metaphorically there.)
Selections from Les Miserables (1862) by Victor Hugo
- Vol.2: Cosette, Book 1: Waterloo, Ch. 17
- “Waterloo, by cutting short the demolition of European thrones by the sword, had no other effect than to cause the revolutionary work to be continued in another direction. The slashers have finished; it was the turn of the thinkers.”
- Vol.2: Cosette, Book 1: Waterloo, Ch. 18
- “But what matters it to the Infinite? all that tempest, all that cloud, that war, then that peace? All that darkness did not trouble for a moment the light of that immense Eye before which a grub skipping from one blade of grass to another equals the eagle soaring from belfry to belfry on the towers of Notre Dame.”
The above chapters claim the revolution was progress, progress towards liberty. Even though Napoleon was defeated, the other monarchs of Europe “saw the writing on the wall” and were willing to limit their monarchal powers.
- Vol 5: Jean Valjean, Book 1: War Between 4 Walls, Ch. 5
- “This is the gestation of the nineteenth century. That which Greece sketched out is worthy of being finished by France….And what is the revolution that we shall cause? I have just told you, the Revolution of the True.”
- Vol 5: Jean Valjean, Book 1: War Between 4 Walls, Ch. 20
- “Progress is man’s mode of existence. The general life of the human race is called Progress, the collective stride of the human race is called Progress. Progress advances; it makes the great human and terrestrial journey towards the celestial and the divine…”
The above chapters (pp. 1188-1192 and pp. 1234-1242) also mention Progress! as the purpose of revolution or, in this case, the doomed insurgency. In Ch. 5, Enjolras speaks to the insurgents, but he’s really speaking to all French citizens, the people. He espouses Liberty, Fraternity, Equality, and education will bring that to the people.
The Rhetoric of Freedom
What’s interesting for this class? From where do these ideas come? Why would he harken back to make that point? The time period is the culmination of historical progress to democracy…that’s a tough statement to defend. What rhetorical force is there with these arguments:
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem….
Reagan, Ronald. First Inaugural Address. 20 January 1981. Full text here.
We are a nation that has a government — not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
**********
Florida is a free state. We reject the biomedical security state that curtails liberty, ruins livelihoods and divides society. And we will protect the rights of individuals to live their lives free from the yoke of restrictions and mandates.
DeSantis, Ron. “Governor Ron DeSantis’ State of the State Address.” 11 January 2022. Full text here.
Florida has stood strong as the rock of freedom. And upon this rock we must build Florida’s future.
**********
For too long, the wealthy and powerful have manipulated our democracy to serve their own interests. The result is a lack of progress on key issues voters care about, such as lowering the price of prescription drugs, grappling with the crisis of climate change, and reducing the epidemic of gun violence. Without legislative action to curb the current culture of corruption, our country cannot effectively address the challenges everyday Americans face.
Herrick, Jen. “Mitch McConnell Must Take the For the People Act Out of His Legislative Graveyard.” People for the American Way. 14 February 2020.
Our democracy is at stake. It’s time to take action and pass H.R. 1 to put the power back in the hands of the American people.
**********
Our private sector must stop taking cues from the Outrage-Industrial Complex. Americans do not need or want big business to amplify disinformation or react to every manufactured controversy with frantic left-wing signaling.
From election law to environmentalism to radical social agendas to the Second Amendment, parts of the private sector keep dabbling in behaving like a woke parallel government. Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order. Businesses must not use economic blackmail to spread disinformation and push bad ideas that citizens reject at the ballot box.
McConnell, Mitch. Corporations Shouldn’t Fall for Absurd Disinformation on Voting Laws. 5 April 2021.
Next Class’s Reading
I’m giving you next week off (3/04-3/08). When we meet again on Thursday, 3/14, we’ll be discussing Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Remind me to tell you a story next week when we discuss Mary Wollstonecraft about two students from an Intro to Technical Comm class from several years ago that discussed the connotations of “feminism.”
I’ll be finished commenting on your Mini-Rhetorical Analysis soon.