……he actually might have closer to an evil genius. — Wayfarer
A crying dog, Descartes maintained, is no different from a whining gear that needs oil — Wayfarer
From what is written, he thought he wasn't causing any harm. There are different levels of intent here from the person who knowingly versus who unknowingly causes suffering. — Hanover
When the animals reacted as though they were suffering pain, Descartes dismissed the reaction as no different from the sound of a machine that was functioning improperly — Wayfarer
A crying dog, Descartes maintained, is no different from a whining gear that needs oil." — Wayfarer
Personally, I believe that animals are intelligent, can reason, feel pain, experience emotions and have propositional attitudes, though not everyone agrees. — RussellA
He believed they were not experiencers. It's a kind of monumental stupidy and denial of the obvious. It doesn't mean he's a sadist. But such denials are problematic and for the animals this difference doesn't matter much.Are you really sure? Because according to the following quotes I guess Descartes was a bit aware of causing suffering to animals or at least he had lack of empathy: — javi2541997
Well, we can, especially if other people at that time were different. IOW we can say that he had the failing of his time, which others did not. Which might or might not put them on a higher moral ground. But we can also judge him for the quality of his brain/mind. How could he not realize this? I doubt anyone here would spend any time judging some cruel to animals person who was a cobbler then. But here we have someone who goes down in history, more or less as a great person. And for what? Well, for his perceptions and thinking. He would certainly have heard of St. Francis of Asissi. He certainly could have talked to people who train and work with animals to see what they thought of animals. I am sure many, many of these people assumed that animals were experiencers and acted based on that assumption. (yes, some of the criticism aimed at descartes could be aimed at his category in general, and scientists had it as pretty much taboo to indicate that animals were experiencere up into the 70s. ) He had other philosophers with similar ideas: Aristotle, Aquinas, after him Kant. I think it might say something about people who spent too much time up in their heads. This can produce all sorts of great stuff...but at the same time it can manage to make you miss the completely obvious.Can’t use our moral compass to judge the righteousness of bygone eras. — Mww
I think it's fair to view it as insane or delusional. Descartes wasn't insane, but you do need some kind of negative delusion (if based on culture and religion and other biases) to primarily assume or conclude that animals are not experiencers.But it was also evident to others that this was insane, like Hume, for instance. — Manuel
Descartes was ready to publish The World in the early 1630s, but was stopped in his tracks by news of the arrest of Galileo. Like Galileo, Descartes had accepted and relied on the findings of Copernicus. Descartes was so afraid, he almost burned all his papers but his pride eventually overcame his fear, and in 1641, he published Principles of Philosophy, though it was a shadow of his original work. The World wasn't published until 1664 — 14 years after his death. https://www.strangescience.net/descartes.htm
This, in spite of the fact that he was doing actual science as well, and by then everyone knew the similarities between canine and human anatomy. He said animals have no feelings or sensations - they only act as if they did. But never explained how non-feeling machines could act as if, or why they should, or why God created human-like machines before man.Descartes believed that animals were no more than organic automata. He contended that they were incapable of feeling pain or emotion, and that they were more akin to machines than living beings.https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/01/scientists-can-be-cruel.html
As L'éléphant has pointed out, I am no longer a "fan" or "follower" of Descartes philosophical theories. I will not discredit his works and contributions to modern philosophy, but in my own view there should be limits towards "scientific researchs", specially when they are dangerous to innocent animals. — javi2541997
Though generally even then they were treated as conscious entities - which Descartes denied….. — Bylaw
That is the definition of hypocrisy. And why did he "believe" that this "belief" of his required demonstrating over and over? How would that have served science? What was to be learned from the crucifixion of yet another helpless animal?Whether Descartes liked to harm animals and created an argument that they didn't feel pain so as to justify his sadism is possible, but that's not consistent at least with what he said. — Hanover
unless you can show Descartes knew the dogs felt pain, you can't condemn him for that harm in the same way as someone who didn't know. — Hanover
What evidence that Neanderthals engaged in brutality toward other people? Renaissance Europeans certainly did, lavishly and inventively, that we know. Stone age peoples hunted with crude weapons, but the objective was to serve an existential necessity, not a side-show.I guess it's possible, for example, that a Neanderthal fully appreciated the 2023 concept of human rights and looked on in horror as his cave-mates engaged in prehistoric barbarity, — Hanover
Sure I can! He repeatedly demonstrated the exact opposite of his claim. He committed deliberate cruelties to show that he didn't believe animals have souls. Well, who doubted it in the first place? And if animals really don't count, and their screams are the mere screeching of drooling, shitting, steaming, bleeding machines, which bear no imaginable resemblance to mechanical constructs, you still have to discount the harm to his wife and whatever human children had loved his other victims. — Vera Mont
What evidence that Neanderthals engaged in brutality toward other people? — Vera Mont
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.