Descartes and Kant: Chasing Knowledge from the Soul
DESCARTES— If I were to ask what part of you is responsible for thinking, how would you respond? You would probably reply "the brain," right? While his reasoning may be attributed to poor knowledge of physiology, Descartes makes a statement that threw me for a loop. He divides a human into the obvious two portions: a physical body, and a spiritual soul. He then says that the soul is responsible for thoughts and ideas, not the brain of the physical body. He answers a very good question: just what does the soul do? We know it's the immortal part of us that God resurrects to live in Heaven, but is it functional on earth? Descartes' idea that it's the true source of thought makes a good deal of sense to me. As the soul will be "us" in Heaven, it makes sense that it's essentially our consciousnesses. They carry our identity, so to speak, and our ability to reason; wouldn't it only make sense that the souls are the true source of thought, and that the brain is just some physical means of putting those thoughts to action by controlling the body?
KANT— I would put a blog here, but I Kant think of one…
I apologize for that. Immanuel Kant claims that every man will find enlightenment if he is encouraged to think and reason for himself; but is enlightenment really so simple a thing as thinking for oneself? I can understand how thinking freely is certainly a step up from letting others think for you, but what if your free thoughts drive yourself and others into a hole? Is it still enlightenment if your thinking directly results in you deciding to suppress the free thinking of others? I can't say I like how simple the definition Kant sets is. Typically enlightenment is thought of as a higher understanding of the Truth than most people have; while this is really a wild eastern religious idea, I think I would prefer to let it keep the term "enlightenment." Unless I'm misunderstanding Kant, Hitler's free-thinking decision to wage genocidal persecution against the Jews was an enlightened thought. I think a line between moral thinking and immoral thinking ought to be drawn here.
Love this post. I can see where you're coming from. When in the name of free thinking and what most oppressive groups have deemed "freedom" do we see change that is not followed by violence AND the very thing that they are supposedly fighting against. Free thinking is a good concept, but I can't trust myself when I feel "free", so I'll play it safe.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the function of the soul, I see it as having purely a spiritual objective in our bodies. We strengthen it and nurture it by meditating on scripture and worshiping God, not necessarily by reading philosophical books and memorizing scientific formulas. It will also last forever, which blows my mind to think about how something that lasts forever stays in a puny, physical body. The brain is far more complicated than I can understand, and I would not put it past it to be the source of all thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI have never thought of the soul this way! That is a crazy and amazing thought that something infinite is, in a sense, trapped in a material finite object! I love how your brain works, Sophia. (This isn't my "comment" for this week.)
DeleteI feel like the identity of the soul is one that is constant. In a way it makes me think of how I write stories involving that of the afterlife. If you consider the soul to be vulnerable, as it is the purest form of someone, then the body is like a shell for it. The body protects its soul from harm. But without the body, the soul is cold and vulnerable, and easily can be swayed into misdoing if found by the wrong forces.
ReplyDeleteI would say that the brain is where our soul inhabits, since it is where we get all of our thoughts from.