Take a photo of a barcode or cover
132 reviews for:
Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy
René Descartes, René Descartes
3.44 AVERAGE
132 reviews for:
Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy
René Descartes, René Descartes
3.44 AVERAGE
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
It is shortly written with tremendous clarity and a sense of politeness that took me off guard. The argumentation is easily traceable and while it did get difficult a couple of times, Wikipedia offers a very substantive overview of Descartes his argumentations.
All in all, I gave the book five starts because of the originality of his argumentation, the impact his work had, and the skillfulness with which it was written.
All in all, I gave the book five starts because of the originality of his argumentation, the impact his work had, and the skillfulness with which it was written.
This is the second time I've read these works. The first time I read Discourse on Method was a public domain edition and this, the Cress version, is far more readable and superior. On the other hand, the first time I read Meditations on First Philosophy was with the Cambridge Cottingham edition which had a far superior introduction, notes and perhaps translation (since I can't read Latin, I can't confirm the accuracy of this).
Discourse is pretty interesting, Descartes decides to throw way everything he's learned and approach everything as geometric proofs where he builds on top of what he can completely infer. At first he rejects all senses and perceptions because they could be an illusion, the only thing he knows is, “I think therefore I am” (or if you read the Cottingham version, 'I am thinking therefore I exist'). From this he bases everything. He later goes to present his own modified version of the ontological argument, basically he thinks of something more perfect than himself, since he knows there is something more perfect then this, then eventually the most perfect thing is God. I'm sure many theists will agree with him that perhaps God is the only other thing they know is true, but I'm not sure how the thought of a most perfect being is more apparent than everything he experiences around him. I realize that his could be in illusion, but the thought of a most perfect being is more concrete? If someone doesn't perceive of this most perfect being instead assumes that everything is partially flawed does god cease to exist?
Meditations further explains his ideas. He rejects everything he was taught and arrives at the fact that he exists, god exists, finally that other things exist and that the body is separate from the soul. It seems his god argument in this one slightly expands to a slightly different argument, namely that something can not come out of nothing and since imperfect things can only come from something more perfect than themselves, if you go up the line of perfection the most perfect thing or God. I guess to me all of these years later, I don't see how this proves god. Secondly I'm curious if the idea of god is natural, meaning if someone was born and never hear the idea of god mentioned would he arrive at the same conclusions of a perfect being or was Descartes influenced by his opinions found from a lifetime of learning from “the great book of the world”. For the material things he realizes that for god to be perfect he wouldn't deceive him by making everything around him an illusion, therefore since God is not a deceiver, matter is real. My initial thought is that if an insane person perceives things as existing which do not, then they're not real and therefore would god then become a deceiver using this reasoning? Anyways regardless of one agrees with Descartes, these works are pretty interesting and for their importance to philosophy alone they are essential reads.
Discourse is pretty interesting, Descartes decides to throw way everything he's learned and approach everything as geometric proofs where he builds on top of what he can completely infer. At first he rejects all senses and perceptions because they could be an illusion, the only thing he knows is, “I think therefore I am” (or if you read the Cottingham version, 'I am thinking therefore I exist'). From this he bases everything. He later goes to present his own modified version of the ontological argument, basically he thinks of something more perfect than himself, since he knows there is something more perfect then this, then eventually the most perfect thing is God. I'm sure many theists will agree with him that perhaps God is the only other thing they know is true, but I'm not sure how the thought of a most perfect being is more apparent than everything he experiences around him. I realize that his could be in illusion, but the thought of a most perfect being is more concrete? If someone doesn't perceive of this most perfect being instead assumes that everything is partially flawed does god cease to exist?
Meditations further explains his ideas. He rejects everything he was taught and arrives at the fact that he exists, god exists, finally that other things exist and that the body is separate from the soul. It seems his god argument in this one slightly expands to a slightly different argument, namely that something can not come out of nothing and since imperfect things can only come from something more perfect than themselves, if you go up the line of perfection the most perfect thing or God. I guess to me all of these years later, I don't see how this proves god. Secondly I'm curious if the idea of god is natural, meaning if someone was born and never hear the idea of god mentioned would he arrive at the same conclusions of a perfect being or was Descartes influenced by his opinions found from a lifetime of learning from “the great book of the world”. For the material things he realizes that for god to be perfect he wouldn't deceive him by making everything around him an illusion, therefore since God is not a deceiver, matter is real. My initial thought is that if an insane person perceives things as existing which do not, then they're not real and therefore would god then become a deceiver using this reasoning? Anyways regardless of one agrees with Descartes, these works are pretty interesting and for their importance to philosophy alone they are essential reads.
I've reviewed both of these treatises, so...
Discourse on Method, read 4/28/25
Descartes' famous Discourse on Method is a pleasurable read that discusses how and why we should use logic and reasoning to evaluate a situation. Despite its reputation, the DoM is honestly not a bad read at all; in fact, it's very pleasurable in its prose (my Penguin translation that combines the Meditations) and in the topics that it discusses. However, though I admire Descartes' provided method on how to keep a logical mindset, I did not enjoy the parts of this discourse where, though minute, he randomly started talking about the anatomy of animals and humans! Despite this reading a bit like a journal, much of this text still holds valuable knowledge and interesting ideas.
Meditations on First Philosophy
"Very wrong, but very interesting." - Joshua Nomen-Mutatio, a mutual
This treatise is extremely laughable. Not only does Descartes devote entire meditations to making revelations about what it means to "think" and perceive," but he miraculously accomplishes nothing in its nearly 70 pages. Descartes, in a sea of "buts" and "perhaps," spends nearly the whole book telling us that since he isn't perfect, a perfect creator must have made him, thus: imperfection = God. I may be too unserious or simply uneducated, but Descartes could have done a lot more with his intelligence and writing skills besides from basically telling us that he believes in God and the mind. Maybe future reads will bring fresher fruit, but this is very disappointing, especially coming from the same man who wrote the very thought-provoking Discourse on Method.
Discourse on Method, read 4/28/25
Descartes' famous Discourse on Method is a pleasurable read that discusses how and why we should use logic and reasoning to evaluate a situation. Despite its reputation, the DoM is honestly not a bad read at all; in fact, it's very pleasurable in its prose (my Penguin translation that combines the Meditations) and in the topics that it discusses. However, though I admire Descartes' provided method on how to keep a logical mindset, I did not enjoy the parts of this discourse where, though minute, he randomly started talking about the anatomy of animals and humans! Despite this reading a bit like a journal, much of this text still holds valuable knowledge and interesting ideas.
Meditations on First Philosophy
"Very wrong, but very interesting." - Joshua Nomen-Mutatio, a mutual
This treatise is extremely laughable. Not only does Descartes devote entire meditations to making revelations about what it means to "think" and perceive," but he miraculously accomplishes nothing in its nearly 70 pages. Descartes, in a sea of "buts" and "perhaps," spends nearly the whole book telling us that since he isn't perfect, a perfect creator must have made him, thus: imperfection = God. I may be too unserious or simply uneducated, but Descartes could have done a lot more with his intelligence and writing skills besides from basically telling us that he believes in God and the mind. Maybe future reads will bring fresher fruit, but this is very disappointing, especially coming from the same man who wrote the very thought-provoking Discourse on Method.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
slow-paced
I read this book to see a mind at work that is crossing from the world of dogmatism to one of reason. His documentation of how this came about in him is very detailed. In the letter of dedication Descartes explains why such a shift is needed. He states “…we must believe in God’s existence because it is taught in the Holy Scriptures, and conversely, that we must believe in the Holy Scriptures because they have come from God.” But he says that unbelievers (i.e., surely not he!) would judge this reasoning to be circular, and a reasoned argument may persuade them.
His actual method is concise, and spartanly conservative. His grounding realization is the identification of his being, which he explains anyone can achieve in themselves. He then makes other determinations as some truths become evident using his method, particularly in mathematics. “I always took the truths I clearly recognized regarding figures, numbers, or other things pertaining to arithmetic, geometry, or, in general, to pure and abstract mathematics to be the most certain of all.” Indeed, Descartes does seem to need far less explanation for this than for his reasoning for God. But he perceives a greater entity than himself from which he must be a part (rather than ideas spontaneously coming into existence).
But God to him was something arrived at from the ground up (reasoning) rather than top down (dogmatism). His concept is a being that permeates the universe and holds the superset of all ideas, in whom is “…hidden all the treasures of the sciences and wisdom...” This God is perfect, which may be an extravagant assumption, but a useful one: “... I observe also that certitude about other things is so dependent on this, that without it nothing can ever be known.” This trust that truth does exist makes all reasoning possible. “God” is his word for the thing that holds truth in the universe and reason is the way to access it. Science is therefore not a counter to God, but dependent on it. “[T]he certainty and truth of every science depends exclusively upon the knowledge of the true God.”
His actual method is concise, and spartanly conservative. His grounding realization is the identification of his being, which he explains anyone can achieve in themselves. He then makes other determinations as some truths become evident using his method, particularly in mathematics. “I always took the truths I clearly recognized regarding figures, numbers, or other things pertaining to arithmetic, geometry, or, in general, to pure and abstract mathematics to be the most certain of all.” Indeed, Descartes does seem to need far less explanation for this than for his reasoning for God. But he perceives a greater entity than himself from which he must be a part (rather than ideas spontaneously coming into existence).
But God to him was something arrived at from the ground up (reasoning) rather than top down (dogmatism). His concept is a being that permeates the universe and holds the superset of all ideas, in whom is “…hidden all the treasures of the sciences and wisdom...” This God is perfect, which may be an extravagant assumption, but a useful one: “... I observe also that certitude about other things is so dependent on this, that without it nothing can ever be known.” This trust that truth does exist makes all reasoning possible. “God” is his word for the thing that holds truth in the universe and reason is the way to access it. Science is therefore not a counter to God, but dependent on it. “[T]he certainty and truth of every science depends exclusively upon the knowledge of the true God.”
It was worth reading this for the foundation it provides, but it was a bit chewy to me.
challenging
reflective
medium-paced