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
저번달에 파스칼의 팡세를 읽다가 데카르트의 회의주의를 까대는 걸 보고
데카르트의 책에 관심을 갖게 되었다.
근대서양철학은 영국 중심의 경험주의(empiricism)와 대치하는 대륙의 합리주의(rationalism)로 크게 나뉘는데
안그래도 작년에 경험주의의 로크와 흄을 읽고나서 이를 보완하기 위해
올해는 합리주의의 데카르트, 스피노자와 라이프니츠를 읽어볼 계획이다.
일단 합리주의의 첫 주자로 데카르트를 얘기하지만
실은 이걸 읽다보면 플라톤과 그리 다르지는 않는 것 같다. (심지어 물질과 정신의 이원론도 비슷)
중세의 스콜라철학에 질려서 반작용으로 axiom과 같이 극명하지 않은 모든 것을 의심해보는 데카르트의 이 방법은
플라톤의 동굴을 연상시키고
현재는 너무 유명해진 트릭스나 인셉션 등의 영화에서도 나오는 '내가 현실이라고 생각했던 것이 알고보면 다 환상이었나..?'하는 의문에서 모든 수과학적 연구와 형이상학적 성찰을 시작하는 회의적인 방법을 써서 획기적이고
이로써 모든 걸 의심하지만 결국 그 의심하는 내가 있음은 확실하기에 '나는 생각한다(의심한다?) 고로 존재한다 (cogito ergo sum)'의 결론에 도달하게 되고 여기에서 그의 성찰이 시작되고 여기서 다른 모든 분야의 지식에 확장된다.
심지어 여기에서부터 그의 존재의 시초인 사유를 가능하게 한 신의 존재와 정신이 의존하지는 않지만 이와 얽혀있는 육체와 다른 물리적 세계에마저 성찰이 연장되는데 개인적으로 데카르트의 방법서설에서는 하비의 심혈관에 대한 연구결과 등 구체적인 부분을 제외하고는 그의 논리에 수긍이 가다가 성찰 부분에서 다소 갸우뚱한 점이 꽤 많았다.
일단 그가 반기를 든 스콜라철학의 신은 선한 존재니까 자신을 속이지 않을 것이다는 순환논리에 빠지는 점에서 그는 신의 존재와 이원론 등에 대한 근거가 궤변으로 빠지는 것을 왜 눈치채지 못했을까? 갈릴레오를 종교심판에 얽매인 것을 보고 조심스러워진 것 때문일까 (실제로 그가 방법서설을 라틴어가 아닌 프랑스어로 쓴 것도 의심스럽다) 아니면 그만큼 중세의 종교관이 그의 이성에마저 영향을 미친 탓일까..
재미있는 건 이 책에서 잘 나와있지는 않지만 관련 참고문헌 등을 읽으며 알게된 파스칼과 데카르트의 관계다. 데카르트는 분명 천재이긴 하지만 파스칼에서는 노력형 천재였기 때문에 그런지 파스칼을 존경하면서도 약간 시기했고 신앙에 푹 빠진 파스칼은 데카르트의 회의주의와 이성으로 신에 접근하려는 방식이 못마땅했다. 하지만 결국 파스칼도 파스칼의 내기라는 너무나도 유명한 신의 존재에 대한 실용주의 논쟁을 내세웠으니 뭐 삐까삐까하지 않을까. 결국 무조건적인 신앙에서 조금씩 발걸음을 떼고 있는 근대유럽의 행적을 따라가는 것 같아서 재미있다.
데카르트의 책을 읽으면서 그에 대한 입문서들을 2권 참고했다.
Descartes: A Very Short Introduction
Oxford University Press에서 나오는 A Very Short Introduction 시리즈 중 하나인데 국내에서는 교유서가에서 나오는 첫단추시리즈에서 번역하고 있다. 아직 데카르트 책은 안 나왔는데 대신 '유럽 대륙철학'을 읽으면 좋을 듯하다.
How to Read Descartes
이전에 How to read Darwin을 읽으며 추천한 입문서. 입문서이기는 한데 Very Short Introduction시리즈가 책을 읽기 전에 읽기 좋은 책이라면 이건 작가의 전기나 책 내용을 요약해주기보다는 책의 주요 부분을 발췌해서 이에 대해 더 생각할 부분을 토의하는 것이기 때문에 책을 읽기 전보다는 책을 읽은 후에 참고하면 더 좋을 것 같은 입문서다.
how do i put this nicely? this man is full of bs.
and i didn't even read all of his work. i only read his meditations on first philosophy (books 1-4 and 6) and i hated every single second of it. his ideas are so convoluted and complex they just make my brain hurt and he's literally making zero sense it's quite annoying. i hated reading descartes. he's like trying so hard to be a profound philosopher like Plato but he is failing so so so hard. he reminds me of those kids in class who think they sound smart but instead they're just spewing out nonsense and no one is eating up his ideas. (well, ig a lot of people were eating up his ideas back then. I'm not eating them up tho). what confuses me is that he starts off his meditations by saying that all he knows is that he thinks therefore he exists. but then he starts talking about god and all this other bs???? like where tf did you pull all this information from????? your ass????? bc clearly. like babe shut up and stick to simply existing for me. his arguments make no sense at all and then he tries to bring god into it????? ok I'm sorry but this is probably the worst proof of god's existence that i have ever heard. i have read way better proofs than this one. in this one he was like trying so hard to prove that a god exists that he failed miserably. no part of this book was entertaining at all. his ideas were stupid. like idk why people are still reading this today. we live in the 21st century where all of our science experiments are all based on our senses and observations made thru the senses so idk why descartes is trying to bring spirit and mind into science. like shut up. I've had enough of this boy. the last philosophy book I've read was Plato's Symposium and that book was absolutely marvelous. that book made me interested in philosophy. but this made me hate philosophy again. what a stupid book. i usually hate calling renowned thinkers stupid bc it makes me feel so weird calling one of the greatest thinkers in history stupid lol. but this guy is actually ridiculous. he's dead and his ideas should stay that way. not hating just stating. there was not a single part of his meditations that i could memorable or worth referring back to. all of it was just straight poo. i even wanted to read his discourse on method if i thought i'd enjoy his meditations after reading it in class. no. his meditations were enough to make me never read him ever again. forgive me if my review is wrong or offensive to you. forgive me if my ideas of what he is saying is wrong. bc if what i interpreted from descartes is wrong don't blame me. blame the man who decided to write the book in this stupid format. i hate meditations bc it's just a ramble. a rant. he's literally going nowhere. this format of writing is literally the worst thing ever to be made. his ideas are so unclear and convoluted and he decided to write it in the most confusing way possible. makes me just wanna chuck the book across the room. anyways that's enough hating from me i think LMFAO. ig this book was monumental to modern philosophy but who cares. descartes is a phoney. his meditations is just a really big fallacy. leave him in the past. thank you.
and i didn't even read all of his work. i only read his meditations on first philosophy (books 1-4 and 6) and i hated every single second of it. his ideas are so convoluted and complex they just make my brain hurt and he's literally making zero sense it's quite annoying. i hated reading descartes. he's like trying so hard to be a profound philosopher like Plato but he is failing so so so hard. he reminds me of those kids in class who think they sound smart but instead they're just spewing out nonsense and no one is eating up his ideas. (well, ig a lot of people were eating up his ideas back then. I'm not eating them up tho). what confuses me is that he starts off his meditations by saying that all he knows is that he thinks therefore he exists. but then he starts talking about god and all this other bs???? like where tf did you pull all this information from????? your ass????? bc clearly. like babe shut up and stick to simply existing for me. his arguments make no sense at all and then he tries to bring god into it????? ok I'm sorry but this is probably the worst proof of god's existence that i have ever heard. i have read way better proofs than this one. in this one he was like trying so hard to prove that a god exists that he failed miserably. no part of this book was entertaining at all. his ideas were stupid. like idk why people are still reading this today. we live in the 21st century where all of our science experiments are all based on our senses and observations made thru the senses so idk why descartes is trying to bring spirit and mind into science. like shut up. I've had enough of this boy. the last philosophy book I've read was Plato's Symposium and that book was absolutely marvelous. that book made me interested in philosophy. but this made me hate philosophy again. what a stupid book. i usually hate calling renowned thinkers stupid bc it makes me feel so weird calling one of the greatest thinkers in history stupid lol. but this guy is actually ridiculous. he's dead and his ideas should stay that way. not hating just stating. there was not a single part of his meditations that i could memorable or worth referring back to. all of it was just straight poo. i even wanted to read his discourse on method if i thought i'd enjoy his meditations after reading it in class. no. his meditations were enough to make me never read him ever again. forgive me if my review is wrong or offensive to you. forgive me if my ideas of what he is saying is wrong. bc if what i interpreted from descartes is wrong don't blame me. blame the man who decided to write the book in this stupid format. i hate meditations bc it's just a ramble. a rant. he's literally going nowhere. this format of writing is literally the worst thing ever to be made. his ideas are so unclear and convoluted and he decided to write it in the most confusing way possible. makes me just wanna chuck the book across the room. anyways that's enough hating from me i think LMFAO. ig this book was monumental to modern philosophy but who cares. descartes is a phoney. his meditations is just a really big fallacy. leave him in the past. thank you.
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Descartes is brilliant until he gets to the topic of religion where he becomes as short-sighted as any other fervent believer.
Descartes set out to doubt everything and build his knowledge back up from scratch. I don't think it worked.
I think his initial reasons for doubting sense perception can be just as easily cited against Reason itself. It seems to me that, were it not for his commitment to Catholic orthodoxy, he would have been forced to abandon nearly all knowledge.
But therein is another of his problems. He doesn't submit Catholic orthodoxy to the epistemic scrutiny that he requires for everything else. He tries to offer a version of Anselm's ontological argument to establish God's existence (which I think to be very weak, personally) and then sneaks Christian Theism in to solve all the problems with his system.
That's not to say everything in this book is nonsense -- it isn't. And there's plenty of thought-provoking arguments to be found. But I think theologian-philosophers like Turretin and Bavinck were right to say the major premises are misguided and poorly executed, and that he set a very problematic ball rolling.
I think his initial reasons for doubting sense perception can be just as easily cited against Reason itself. It seems to me that, were it not for his commitment to Catholic orthodoxy, he would have been forced to abandon nearly all knowledge.
But therein is another of his problems. He doesn't submit Catholic orthodoxy to the epistemic scrutiny that he requires for everything else. He tries to offer a version of Anselm's ontological argument to establish God's existence (which I think to be very weak, personally) and then sneaks Christian Theism in to solve all the problems with his system.
That's not to say everything in this book is nonsense -- it isn't. And there's plenty of thought-provoking arguments to be found. But I think theologian-philosophers like Turretin and Bavinck were right to say the major premises are misguided and poorly executed, and that he set a very problematic ball rolling.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
I had a bit of trouble reading this. I was invested, but not convinced, and it was boring.