The Times Would Fail Freshman Philosophy
I know that the New York Times isn't particularly well-known as a publication of philosophical rigor, but this article in yesterday's issue just really irritated me with its pseudo-philosophical babble trying to tie together philosophical theories of mind, theological theories of soul, and evolutionary science in a neat little pop-science package:
The result is perhaps the strongest challenge yet to the worldview summed up by Descartes, the 17th-century philosopher who divided the creatures of the world between humanity and everything else. As biologists turn up evidence that animals can exhibit emotions and patterns of cognition once thought of as strictly human, Descartes's dictum, "I think, therefore I am," loses its force.The big issue, of course, is that this completely misses Descartes' point. Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, is the same as: I think therefore I exist. It simply means that if i were in a world where I couldn't believe a single thing that I perceived with any certainty (suppose I'm in the Matrix), I could still have access to one bit of knowledge: by virtue of the fact that I can think I must exist.
It's true enough that Descartes separated humans (as soul-owners) from other animals. But this particular quotation, apart from being sound bite–worthy, has nothing to do with Descartes' separation of humans from animals. Furthermore, the view that humans are unique has been universal in western thought since western thought has existed. I don't mean to sound pedantic, but the Times can surely do better than this fluff.
Labels: evolution, philosophy, religion, sham
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home