If there is an existing thread where the topic can be discussed, that's fine with me.

But I'm not interested enough in the topic (at the moment), to start a new thread about it, because I don't think I'll be able to participate in it with the proper consideration an OP should have...

I feel the same as you Manuel; not enough time to do justice to being the thread creator. As I said already, I think it is a paradigmatically murky topic, and discussions of it never seem to get anywhere anyway, so perhaps best to leave it.

…..understanding the background to these disputes…. — Wayfarer

Be pretty hard wouldn’t it, when everything at university from which the disputes arose, was fundamentally predicated on what we now call classical philosophy but was standard at the time, on one hand, and good old fashion theology on the other. I think this matters, because we got Discourse, but we didn’t get Le Monde, simply out of fear of church reprisals, a la Galileo.

Rumor has it Le Monde had originally contained a treatise on animals, among others, which would probably have shed some horse’s-mouth, first person light on his attitude directly towards the worthiness of moral implications with respect to the treatment of them. So saying, I never once would have disagreed with your standing on animal abuse; I do have a different opinion nonetheless, over such implications, relative to our own civil and post-Enlightenment evolution.
————-

Quite what Descartes means by 'thought', (…) I have a rough idea — Wayfarer

As in Kant, I’ve found it best to go with the cut-and-dried definition, and that’s in First Principles, 1, 9.
For whatever that’s worth.

But it seems to me that Descartes' understanding of the mind or soul is too narrow. — Wayfarer

As for understanding mind….absolutely. As for soul….ehhhh, I’m not a soul kinda guy myself. In the world of pure metaphysical abstractions, I’m ok with drawing the line at mere consciousness.
———-

On Dennett: he’s accessible. Why bother researching moldy tomes when a video is right there. ‘Nuff said?

Sure - if it comes up again, we can continue whenever that happens. As you say, I don't think much hinges on this, but something could come up.

:up:

Cool find. I've never read the objections before. Thanks for posting.
***

Following the Descartes SEP article embedded within the blog I pulled the following quote:

In mechanizing the concept of living thing, Descartes did not deny the distinction between living and nonliving, but he did redraw the line between ensouled and unensouled beings. In his view, among earthly beings only humans have souls. He thus equated soul with mind: souls account for intellection and volition, including conscious sensory experiences, conscious experience of images, and consciously experienced memories. Descartes regarded nonhuman animals as machines, devoid of mind and consciousness, and hence lacking in sentience. (Although Descartes' followers understood him to have denied all feeling to animals, some recent scholars question this interpretation; on this controversy, see Cottingham 1998 and Hatfield 2008.) . . . — SEP

I think that the parenthetical comment supports @Vera Mont 's and the blogs contention, and I'm curious how those scholars square away their belief with the already quoted portion of the SEP article on Animal Consciousness, part 3:

Although the roots of careful observation and experimentation of the natural world go back to ancient times, study of animal behavior remained largely anecdotal until long after the scientific revolution. Animals were, of course, widely used in pursuit of answers to anatomical, physiological, and embryological questions. Vivisection was carried out by such ancient luminaries as Galen and there was a resurgence of the practice in early modern times (Bertoloni Meli 2012). Descartes himself practiced and advocated vivisection (Descartes, Letter to Plempius, Feb 15 1638), and wrote in correspondence that the mechanical understanding of animals absolved people of any guilt for killing and eating animals.

Rarely do we get such a clear cut relationship in a historical document of a person's thought directly advocating something so pertinent to the question at hand. How can you rationally advocate vivisection while believing animals feel pain? (If he believes they feel pain, isn't that even worse?)

**

One thing I'd push back a bit on, though, is that social structures don't need philosophical justification. Treating animals as a resource is something we still do, even if we now recognize that it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering. Something I'd like to see is the connection between Cartesian philosophy and how we still treat animals. Many people will acknowledge that animals feel pain these days, so it's not obvious that Descartes philosophy is connected to how we treat animals even though there are some Christian traditionalists still about. At least, not as obvious as the above connection that I'm in support of -- at least as I see it.



I don't think anyone has said we should cancel Descartes, only that people feel different about the man. And I'd concur -- I didn't realize until doing this dive that Descartes practiced vivisection. I'd guess that the people of the day who didn't agree with vivisections would agree with me, but who knows. I have no problem judging the people of the past in accord with my ethics -- but certainly, I believe in reading one who is not only influential, and so you can begin to draw traces from his thinking to now (I'm more noting that it's going to take some work), but also an incredibly intelligent mind.

But in cases of judgment on the ethos of a man and his philosophy -- I think actions taken counts as are an important part of the judgment.

Rarely do we get such a clear cut relationship in a historical document of a person's thought directly advocating something — Moliere

Descartes, Letter to Plempius, Feb 15 1638

I’d be careful here. Try finding that historical document, which is in truth the only way to glean from it some personal thought. As far as I have been able to find, all we have is he said he said, but we don’t have what he himself said.

While it may be sufficient to accept as given that Descartes “practiced and advocated vivisection”, because some referenced letter apparently says so, and the historical record supports period-specific occasions in general, re: Boyle, Malabranche, the personal thought with respect to it resides in the context, which is not determinable from the claim alone.

Also, in letters to Mersenne, 1632, in following Vesalius 1629, he talks of dissection, which may or may not be the linguistic precursor to vivisection. If we grant he used the word as it stands today, we can say he didn’t do the latter, having instead admitted the former, and if he used the word as we use vivisection today, we still don’t have evidence of his personal thoughts regarding its ethical/moral implications. Scientifically, yes…it’s fine, animals don’t feel pain like humans, which is probably true. But that doesn’t say they don’t feel something which is pain to them, the truth of which science can never prove, and the implications of which he didn’t address.

Anyway…..fun to think about.

I was lucky enough to find a translation of the letter on the internet.

You object that sometimes even in a heart that has been taken from the body and dissected, individual parts of it go on beating although no blood is flowing into or out of it. Well, I once made a rather careful observation of this phenomenon in fish, whose hearts after removal from the body go on beating for much longer than the heart of any terrestrial animal. But I could always judge—and in many cases I could see—that some remaining drops of blood had fallen from higher up into the lower part where the pulse was occurring. — Descartes, Letter to Plempius, Feb 15 1638

How could Descartes see the heart of terrestrial animals beating after removing them from the body other than vivisection?

Cool. You’re a better keyword-er than I, I guess. Got a link?

Better than that….how can dissected individual parts go on beating.

I forgot to add the link before posting, but have since edited it. Here it is on a first post.

Something I'd like to see is the connection between Cartesian philosophy and how we still treat animals. — Moliere

That was in the back of mind when I started this debate, although since joining forums ten years ago I've become aware of how deeply influential Descartes is in modern culture (much more so that most people are consciously aware.) But his mechanistic view of organisms is deeply embedded in today's culture although being seriously challenged now by (for example) semiotics in biology, embodied cognitivism, and other more holistic philosophies.

Might also add, by way of full disclosure, that I am very much a dog lover. I've had quite a few, though none currently - my dear other is indifferent to them - but the last one in particular, named River, I had a very close physical relationship with, as I used to take him to the dog wash every week, and he was also a rather emotionally needy dog, as he'd been neglected for years prior to being rescued by us, and had apparently been caged alone for a great many years. Took him six months to settle down.

(He was also an exceedingly lazy dog, although it turned out he might have been suffering from diabetes for the 3 years that we cared for him.)

Many people will acknowledge that animals feel pain these days, so it's not obvious that Descartes philosophy is connected to how we treat animals even though there are some Christian traditionalists still about. — Moliere

It doesn't have to be directly connected to have an influence. A whole powerful movement's mind-set was established in that time, though not by Descartes alone, he was very distinctly a leader in his own day, and has been revered ever since. He told his colleagues and students exactly what they wanted: with his blessing, they could pretend that they were not doing anything wrong. Our entire world-view, attitudes and approach are, to a considerable extent, the result of what was decreed by Descartes' generation and immediate followers.
Once a structure of thought and organization of knowledge is established upon a set of principles, it will take another revolution in thinking - and probably in physical conditions, as well - to change it. Some cosmetic touches have been given to the surface, but the edifice is still solid. Not least, because it supports the vested interests of wealth and power.

In the article Descartes on Animals in the Philosophical Quarterly, Peter Harrison argues that the view that Descartes denied feelings to animals is mistaken. — RussellA

I did find a copy of that work, and scanned it, but it doesn't make any mention of the allegations that I found in the post I linked to, about Descartes actually mounting demonstrations of torturing dogs. Towards the very end, Harrison says 'Whether Descartes' hypothesis encouraged such practices as vivisection remains an open question', so presumably Harrison is not aware of such claims. Now this thread has attracted so much attention, I'll put some more time into double-checking the substance of it.

From a little further reading reveals the suggestion that the previously-mentioned acts of 'hammering dogs to boards' was actually carried out not by Descartes but by pupils at a college influenced by Cartesian ideas. However the same source also notes that Descartes was interested in vivisection and anatomical examination of animals alive and dead. Another source says that the report about maltreatment of dogs was written long after the events and may not be trustworthy.

It seems to me that on further reading, the story about Descartes appalling treatment of dogs is apocryphal at best, but that he certainly was interested in vivisection, not least because of his theory that the mind and the body interacted via the pituitary gland.

But, as far as the story that opened this thread is concerned, unless someone has better information, I'm somewhat relieved to report that it probably is not true.

I was lucky enough to find a translation of the letter on the internet. — Moliere

Ahhhh….excellent. I gave you objections, you gave me letters. Tip of the pointy hat.

I guess it is established Descartes did vivisections in the spirit of anatomical science, but more than likely without the embellishments of the modern sensationalists.

Perhaps we shan’t quibble over the editing of supposedly verbatim correspondence in assuagement of delicate constitutions on the one hand, or, being informed of that which we don’t need to know, on the other, re: Bennet 2017 vs Letter to Plempius 1638.
—————

The early-modern philosophical question remains: given the intrinsic duality of mind and body necessarily conditioned by their respective substances, how to determine the substance of the mind, unless to eliminate the substance of the body; how to eliminate the substance of the body from substance of the mind, by determining exactly how the substance of the body performs, such that it is proven to have no effect on the performance of substance of the mind; how to determine exactly how the substance of the body performs, unless by observing it as it performs.

Where is the fault, exactly?

Where is that from? I know Peter Harrison's work, I'd be interested in following up on that. — Wayfarer

The Philosophical Quarterly Vol 42 No 167 April 1992 "Descartes on Animals" Peter Harrison - www.jstor.org/stable/2220217

Peter Harrison remarks that John Cottingham has suggested that the passages in the Cartesian corpus don't support the common view that Descartes denied feeling to animals. As also mentioned by the SEP on Rene Descartes, which refers to Harrison and Hatfield. See also Chapter X "Descartes' Treatment of Animals" of John Cottingham's book Descartes (which I cannot find online).

Criticism is not cancellation! In fact the inability to make this distinction is one of the primary drivers of 'cancel culture'. — Wayfarer

Totally agree.

Quite what Descartes means by 'thought', why humans have it and animals don't — Wayfarer

I don't believe that there was a sharp cut-off between animals and humans as regards intelligence, feelings, reasoning, propositional attitudes, etc, but there was a gradual evolutionary process over millions of years. After all, humans are animals. For me, a dog has the same "quality" of reasoning as a human, even if the "quantity" is less. There are many examples where the behaviour of certain animals seems to clearly show that they are reasoning through a problem, and thereby have propositional l attitudes.

However, some disagree. For example, Donald Davidson denies that animals have propositional attitudes, though doesn't deny that they have no mental life at all.

The problem with treating animals as being of a different kind to ourselves is the consequence that we may treat animals inhumanely.

Something I'd like to see is the connection between Cartesian philosophy and how we still treat animals. — Moliere

At the conclusion of this paper:

“….“Forget the pig is an animal. Treat him just like a machine in a factory. Schedule treatments like you would lubrication. Breeding season like the first step in an assembly line. And marketing like the delivery of finished goods….”

Although this admonition from an American pig farmer conflicts with our widespread belief that animals differ from inanimate objects, it is this type of Cartesian thinking that allows agribusiness corporations to offer low-cost animal foods to consumers. The corporate ownership of animals has had a devastating impact on animal welfare, particularly through factory farming….”
(https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2728&context=facpubs)

That paper you shared @Mww is doing something similar to the blog post that I'm trying to highlight. It begins with a clear explication of an interpretation of a prominent philosopher's view, and then moves over to a clear set of examples which fit with the explication.

What this demonstrates is coherency, though, and not historical cause, or even a trace.

For instance, prior to Descartes we also used animals as a resource. As has been pointed out, the Christian worldview from which Descartes was building his philosophy already allowed the mistreatment of animals, at least by our sensibilities (which, I'd note, are far from universal even today) informed by the notion that them feeling pain -- even if it is their own kind of pain rather than human pain -- is enough to warrant them as having moral worth, or are worthy of moral consideration.

Not only that, given that Descartes is being used here as an example of a philosophy that denies pain to animals (though it looks like there's scholarly controversy there, so who knows, we're not in a good position to judge), and we here believe that animals feel pain, and yet we also treat animals as a resource, it's even more unclear that Descartes philosophy is the reason we treat animals the way we do.

Which isn't to say it cannot be demonstrated. There's definitely a coherency there I can see. So, in some way we might say that this is the thought-component which happens to live on for awhile to justify treating animals as resources (to varying degrees, of course, but that general principle still holds) -- but I'm thinking it's not Descartes philosophy as much as a much longer historical practice.

it's even more unclear that Descartes philosophy is the reason we treat animals the way we do. — Moliere

Hell….maybe it’s just us. The way we are as a species.

it's even more unclear that Descartes philosophy is the reason we treat animals the way we do. — Moliere

His intention is quite clear. Here it is again: “[My] view is not so much cruel to beasts but respectful to human beings… whom it absolves from any suspicion of crime whenever they kill or eat animals”

Obviously, it's not the reason we do it; we had always done it. In the bible, they figure prominently as wealth and as sacrifice. Even Jesus, who didn't seem to offer sacrifices, had no compunction in chasing demons into a herd of swine and driving them off a cliff (a stranger's entire livelihood - but the stranger wasn't an Israelite, so who cares?) In the seventeenth century, as it had been from the beginning of civilization into our own times, the sadistic appetites of emotionally stunted humans were satiated with spectacles of bloodshed; the taunting, harassment, degradation, torture, mutilation and killing of both animals and other humans.
This is not about killing to obtain meat for survival, though some people keep trying to conflate the two concepts; this is particularly and explicitly about the suffering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullfighting https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/
https://wildlife-rescue.org/services/advocacy/animals-in-entertainment/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071402/
Humans have always been cruel, as well as kind. Since they know - instinctively and empathetically - that it's wrong to abuse any sentient creature, they find cover stories for their dark craving. The invention of machines, automata, was one such (evidently absurd) story, used by Descartes.

During the Enlightenment, some scholars were beginning to doubt the divine right of man and the dumb bestiality of beasts. Because scientific study had recently shifted to direct observation and experimentation, some observers were writing about the similarities they could no longer overlook. (They were approaching dangerously - and in those days, the danger was clear and present and looming - close to an inkling, if not a theory, of evolution.)

The chapter examines different theological and philosophical paradigms of rights in the early modern period. It shows that, contrary to initial appearances, animals were not totally excluded from any kind of right, and that violence against them was not always regarded as legitimate.

And so, reassurance from their spokesman-hero was extremely welcome to anatomists of that time, and even more so, to the 18th and 19th century ones who faced more social opposition. For Descartes himself, it may also have been another layer of insulation against the wrath of the church; he had been skating on some thin ice for years.
But not everyone was convinced, even then.

The seventeenth century was also the time of one of the most vigorous debates on the characteristics of animals and the possibility of moral duties toward them. The main reference point in this debate was the Cartesian theory of the ‘beast-machine’, which viewed animals as senseless automata.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8365.00183

During the Enlightenment, some scholars were beginning to doubt the divine right of man and the dumb bestiality of beasts. — Vera Mont

This is the part I want more details on. Rather than some scholars, or rather than a most vigorous set of debates held within a 100 year period, I was curious if there's a more direct connection between Cartesian philosophy, including those following along in his path (rather than just the man alone, but actual instances of his philosophy), and these scholars who were beginning to doubt and were then either suppressed by the popularity of Cartesian philosophy or convinced by it.

I think that's part of it, but also I think we can change. In a lot of ways I think we continue to treat animals as a resource more out of historical momentum of doing so. (plus, now that there's a whole industry around meat-production, the usual motives against change are at play)

Rather than some scholars, or rather than a most vigorous set of debates held within a 100 year period, I was curious if there's a more direct connection between Cartesian philosophy, including those following along in his path — Moliere

If the Wiley article doesn't give enough references, here is another possible source: https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-philosophy-and-animals
and a correspondence https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/Descartes_versus_Cudworth_On_The_Moral_Worth_of_Animals

Unfortunately, the Wiley article was pay-walled for me. Gone are my days from always being able to access anything.

Cudworth is the kind of example I'm looking for, but I'm a bit skeptical about the trace from Descartes to us still. For instance, the article on Cudworth ends on:

Cudworth’s ideas were far more subversive in his time than they might seem to us today. In his intellectual biography of Cudworth, the late John Passmore noted that Cudworth’s philosophy was “regarded with suspicion, as atheistic in tendency” because “he blurred the sharp distinction, on which Descartes insisted, between the human mind and every other sort of natural entity” (Ralph Cudworth: An Interpretation, 1951).

So while there were people other than Descartes at the time who'd disagree with his animal experiments -- the people I imagined before who I figured probably agreed with me in spite of the spirit of the times -- it doesn't seem like it was Descartes' philosophy, to me, as much as the influence of the church which made his ideas unpopular.

This isn't a small thing to consider. One of the reasons Descartes may be cited isn't because he gave people permission to do what they wanted, but because he wrote them for other people. If it wasn't Descates that gave them an excuse, it may have been someone else after all. As you note, we have the capacity for both kindness and cruelty.

So I think I'd maintain that while I see the coherency between Cartesian philosophy and our present way of treating animals as a resource (even our pets are just resources for our joy, and have owners), but still maintaining some skepticism with respect to the causal claim.

For those who might have missed it - from further reading, I think the story about Descartes deliberately torturing dogs as a public display is not true according to two sources I link to in this post. He did have an interest in, and sometimes participated in, vivisection (dissection of live animals) but that is a different matter to public displays of torturing animals.

'm a bit skeptical about the trace from Descartes to us still. — Moliere

Can't be helped, I'm afraid. Some people on this thread have demonstrated his influence on modern times, but you can only go by what people say. You can find something useful in here, maybe.

He did have an interest in, and sometimes participated in, vivisection (dissection of live species) but that is a different matter to public displays of torturing animals. — Wayfarer

Except that dissection of human corpses were generally open to the public.

Across Europe, anatomical theatres affiliated with the early universities steadily became tourist attractions, due to the public dissections they held. From Leiden to Paris, Amsterdam and London, these unusual urban sites opened their doors to an enthused and interested public. As the 17th century progressed, the anatomical theatre became a focal point of city life, where the fashionable elite would gather.

So why would the public be barred from vivisections?

I think for me the vivisection example is still enough. That takes one hell of a disconnect from animal suffering to be able to rationally do or observe or some such. I mean, I can see what you're saying in that at least it's for knowledge rather than just some sick display, but eh. I can see the coherency well enough to say there's a possible danger there from philosophy to activity, but it'd depend upon the interpretation.

Ehhh….I just found that cuz you asked.

I don’t think any rational thinker is going to discriminate against Descartes’ philosophy because of his anatomical science. Like hoeing a crooked row only to blame the dirt.
————-



Makes one wonder about the agenda residing in those that promote undocumented nonsense, resting assured somebody or other will take it for gospel.

I think for me the vivisection example is still enough — Moliere

Of course, it’s abhorrent, but it is still a niche below nailing dogs to boards and flaying them alive while saying their cries of agony are like squeaky wheels. I’m beginning to think that it’s an Internet myth.

Makes one wonder about the agenda residing in those that promote undocumented nonsense, resting assured somebody or other will take it for gospel. — Mww

As said above, I’m coming to the view that the passage referenced by the RealClearScience page that I quoted is not true. It’s the old story, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, although the subsequent discussion of treatment of animals and the implications of Descartes’ dualism remains interesting in its own right.

Heh. Well, I'll note that I'm also OK with just having different views. You certainly don't need to accommodate my thoughts, I'm only voicing them. Mere thoughts, and all that.

Of course, it’s abhorrent, but it is still a niche below nailing dogs to boards and flaying them alive while saying their cries of agony are like squeaky wheels. I’m beginning to think that it’s an Internet myth. — Wayfarer

I agree, totally different actions.

I wouldn't be surprised if the people inspired by Descartes did something along those lines. (though that's not the same as demonstration, either -- something about knowledge. it's hard to obtain sometimes!)

I'm thinking it's a mixture of things, which is why the details start to matter. I can perceive a through-line of coherency from what Descartes said about animals to how we treat animals now. I'm questioning the specifics, but I'll still say that it makes sense, even if we grant Descartes believing in animal pain. (as I noted -- isn't it actually worse if he believed animals have their own kind of pain, but thought because it's not human pain it's not morally worthwhile? Not named dogs with a relationship, but just "animals", as one might say). I think the thing I've been digging at more is how the choice of Descartes is somewhat arbitrary for the question at hand, and is probably chosen because the thought is that modernity is the cause of our treatment of animals, whereas I'm contending that our treatment of animals has more to do with a deeper history of how we've always treated animals. (trying to take a descriptive approach, here -- not taking a side as much as describing ethical commitments and actions)