Scan barcode
musicdeepdive's review against another edition
4.0
I write therefore I think. I think therefore I am. Do I think before I write? Jury's out on that one, chief. But I most certainly am, there can be no doubt about that.
bookishlifetime's review against another edition
4.0
Descartes has some interesting points of view. Recommended to those who are willing to learn something and like to watch the world with a different eye after reading this.
jatinnagpal's review against another edition
3.0
Descartes was a logical person, and if he would've been born in these times, he would have arrived at different conclusions from the discourse.
So, it is coloured in his biases that are no longer seen as right as they would have at his time.
So, it is coloured in his biases that are no longer seen as right as they would have at his time.
zmb's review against another edition
3.0
The Discourse occupies a very important place in the history of philosophy, but, even placing it in its historical context, it's hard for me to get too excited about it. From my perspective, there are two notable features:
1) Cogito, ergo sum. This is a neat trick Descartes uses against skeptics; in slightly longer form, one might say "I am capable of thinking and am currently doing so, therefore I, or at least my intellect, must be something." And as a first principle it's pretty handy to know that you exist.
2) The general exhortation to what we would call science, most notable in the first bit of Part VI but scattered throughout the work. Descartes, despite himself falling back on scholastic terminology and making use of a suspicious amount of stoic philosophy, tells his readers that they should not trust anything they read and should seek to prove things themselves. He goes on to talk about the huge amount of experiments and observations necessary to advance science and prove men's mastery of nature. This was fairly revolutionary at the time and he was proven right through events. But, at the same time, it's hard to get too excited about this because he refused to publish his complete treatise because it contained heliocentrism and he didn't want to offend the Church so soon after it had condemned Galileo. So he would be a little more convincing on this topic with a little more boldness, especially since he lived outside the reach of the Church in the Netherlands anyway.
1) Cogito, ergo sum. This is a neat trick Descartes uses against skeptics; in slightly longer form, one might say "I am capable of thinking and am currently doing so, therefore I, or at least my intellect, must be something." And as a first principle it's pretty handy to know that you exist.
2) The general exhortation to what we would call science, most notable in the first bit of Part VI but scattered throughout the work. Descartes, despite himself falling back on scholastic terminology and making use of a suspicious amount of stoic philosophy, tells his readers that they should not trust anything they read and should seek to prove things themselves. He goes on to talk about the huge amount of experiments and observations necessary to advance science and prove men's mastery of nature. This was fairly revolutionary at the time and he was proven right through events. But, at the same time, it's hard to get too excited about this because he refused to publish his complete treatise because it contained heliocentrism and he didn't want to offend the Church so soon after it had condemned Galileo. So he would be a little more convincing on this topic with a little more boldness, especially since he lived outside the reach of the Church in the Netherlands anyway.
aishayn's review against another edition
3.0
Çok rahat anlaşılabilir bir dili var. Her şey güzel bir şekilde açıklanmış ve örneklendirilmiş, okuması çok rahat.
jpronan124's review against another edition
4.0
Def makes some leaps and is a little airheaded at times but so refreshing after Luther and all these cats and their tiny buttholes
smalius's review against another edition
3.0
As one of the founding texts of not only modern philosophy, but also modern scientific inquiry, I have nothing but the uptmost respect for Descartes' innovations on the scientific/philosophical method. Subjecting even our good old reliable sensory experience to significant sceptical doubt, he provides a relatively revolutionary basis from which significant truths can be inferred, and many important questions can be raised.
That being said, where this text begins to stumble for me is as soon as Descartes embarks to elaborate upon the principles he believes his method to reveal. Barring the notorious "cogito, ergo sum" argument, I find his ontological proof for the existence of god wholly unconvincing and causally inconsistent. This would not be such an issue, were the existence of God not then established as a given principle from which all of Descartes' other findings derive.
These span from the inferior rationality of animals, to a relatively lengthy and dense series of observations on the heart's function. Some have since been proven false, whilst others merely struggle to satisfy demonstrative knowledge, at least from where im standing.
He then goes on, inbetween constant assertions of his boundless modesty, to discuss at length his motivations for publishing what he published, and withholding what he withheld. This part actually contains some genuinely admirable views on the collaborative nature of science and the collective right of knowledge - tenants we could use a healthy reminder of today.
Though nuggets of value are unquestionably strewn throughout, these sections were largely tiresome and pale in comparison to the first two thirds of the book.
It is clear to me, and evidently to posterity as well, that this text's greatest value is in the philosophical method of systematic doubt. It helped to usher in a new age of philosophical and scientific discovery, even if Descartes himself still had one foot in the door of antiquity.
That being said, where this text begins to stumble for me is as soon as Descartes embarks to elaborate upon the principles he believes his method to reveal. Barring the notorious "cogito, ergo sum" argument, I find his ontological proof for the existence of god wholly unconvincing and causally inconsistent. This would not be such an issue, were the existence of God not then established as a given principle from which all of Descartes' other findings derive.
These span from the inferior rationality of animals, to a relatively lengthy and dense series of observations on the heart's function. Some have since been proven false, whilst others merely struggle to satisfy demonstrative knowledge, at least from where im standing.
He then goes on, inbetween constant assertions of his boundless modesty, to discuss at length his motivations for publishing what he published, and withholding what he withheld. This part actually contains some genuinely admirable views on the collaborative nature of science and the collective right of knowledge - tenants we could use a healthy reminder of today.
Though nuggets of value are unquestionably strewn throughout, these sections were largely tiresome and pale in comparison to the first two thirds of the book.
It is clear to me, and evidently to posterity as well, that this text's greatest value is in the philosophical method of systematic doubt. It helped to usher in a new age of philosophical and scientific discovery, even if Descartes himself still had one foot in the door of antiquity.