That article on the Friesian website is right on the mark, I will take time to read it.

I will add, my overall estimation of Descartes has always been very high. He was subject of the first unit I ever studied in undergrad philosophy as 'the first modern'. I have always shared his estimation of reason and frequently refer to his writings. I'm also very interested in the assumed connection between reason and the soul, it is a topic I'm researching.

But I'm dubious that these acts can be rationalised merely by the fact that they occured in the past. I have no doubt that if I did enough research I could find examples (other than Buddhism, already mentioned) of ancient philosophies that abjured cruelty to animals.

If you hit a dog with a stick, you would hear a painful scream and probably tears in his eyes. Whenever someone (who at least his mind works correctly) sees this terrible action, — javi2541997

So dogs eyes don't tear up when they cry, but aside from that, animal welfare in developing countries is far worse than in developed countries. That's just part of the evolution of humanity, to start to see animals as those of a different degree of creature and not a wholly different type of creature.

The 1600s were not a time of great human rights, and I'd suspect the opinions of those during that time wouldn't at all sit well here. That a Martian might find it hard to figure out appropriate conduct on Earth probably arises at least in part in that he's never been to Earth before. The same holds true for 1600s man, who can't be held to today's standards, nor neither can I be held to the standard of 500 years from now, that I don't even know.

We read the Bible and hear of tales of young daughters having had their heads dashed against rocks. I'd submit that book is far more foundational to our society than is the Meditations. We needn't jettison either book, or whoever their authors might have been for that matter, but just realize it was from another time and place, far worse than where we live today.

In any event, if this is the path you wish to take, provide me the name of any of your heroes who lived 200 or more years ago, and I'll do the research to show you why you need to despise him.

Sure, past times were worse than nowadays, in every topic we debate about, and I already agreed with you in the fact that I should not throw away all the contributions of Descartes to philosophy. Nonetheless, I still see a very disappointing fact in Descartes's personal life the way he treated the animals. At least that's my personal opinion.

In any event, if this is the path you wish to take, provide me the name of any of your heroes who lived 200 or more years ago, and I'll do the research to show you why you need to despise him. — Hanover

I have important examples of philosophers who lived 200 or more years ago and it is not necessary to despise them due to his obscenity or cruelty or whatever ethical issues in any event.

Laozi: author of Tao Te Ching. Taoism is a peaceful philosophical doctrine. The Zhuangzi in turn urges one to imagine a world free of cages, corrals, hooks, lures, nets, pens, snares, and traps (chapters 1, 3, 10, 18, 20, and 23). These have both literal and symbolic meanings, and the corresponding liberation must occur on both cognitive and behavioral levels: Animals and Daoism

Confucius: his analects made the system of thought called Confucianism and still persists nowadays. One of the key points of Confucianism is "humaneness". "Ren" (仁) I want to share an interesting paragraph regarding to it: There have been a variety of definitions for the term ren. Ren has been translated as "benevolence", "perfect virtue", "goodness" or even "human-heartedness". When asked, Confucius defined it by the ordinary Chinese word for love, ai, saying that it meant to "love others"

We can be agree with the point that Confucianism and Daoism are far away of being cruel in any event, right?

The article that @Hanover linked https://www.friesian.com/jowers.htm is informative. I hadn't realised the absolute nature of Descartes' division between mind/ reason (which he seems to grant only to humans) and body. Some snippets as follows. It begins with an objection and Descartes' reply.

... ... animals... possess life, which is said to be "nobler than any merely corporeal grade of being". Descartes responds by simply denying the notion that "life" is nobler than inanimate being. In accordance with his mechanistic philosophy, he holds the body to be "nothing but a statue or machine made of earth," and apparently thinks this conclusion sufficiently well established that he need not defend it at length...
...Descartes expands this claim by asserting that "it is certain that [animals] have no perfection which is not also present in inanimate bodies". It follows, therefore, that any argument, derived from the observation of nature, which purported to prove that dogs or apes have reason would apply with the same force, not only to sponges, but even to rocks....

There is some sophisticated argument, or rather, some sophistry, deployed in defense of Descartes dogma, but it strikes the modern reader, I think, as manifestly absurd, and not just on humanitarian grounds. Even in the 17th century, it would be easy to demonstrate, I would have thought, that all living beings possess attributes which are entirely absent in non-organic substances.

In China an annual dog-eating festival is held and the dogs are tortured, beaten and burned alive apparently. And this was (at least in part) a Buddhist culture. I find this, and what you have reported about Descartes, almost impossible to contemplate. I think many people simply lack any compassion. The human race is one sick breed on the whole!

If we're looking at intent, then we have to try to figure out what they really thought, and 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

This reads to me like apologist garbage. If Descartes did as it is said, he was a psychopath, lacking any compassion or real wisdom. Perhaps he couldn't help that, but it is impossible to admire such a man.

I always found his philosophy absurd anyway, so I have no conflict over whether to think his behavior should disqualify his philosophy. Is it that his philosophy explains his behavior, or that his total lack of compassion explains his philosophy?

Well, sure, there's plenty of violence committed in ostensibly Buddhist cultures, it's human nature, regrettably. (With some exceptions, it is said that the Himalayan Buddhist cultures are kind to animals to a fault, I remember from that Seven Years in Tibet, when the Dalai Lama wanted a cinema constructed, the whole project was delayed by months as the monks moved all the earthworms.)

I think, more to the point, it's not a large jump from Descartes' conception of the mind, to Dennett's eliminative materialism. First, define 'mind' in a way that is completely unfeasible. Then, declare that only humans possess it. Gilbert Ryle and Daniel Dennett take the next step of saying it's something that doesn't exist at all.

You mean to say Descartes' conception of body. For Descartes the mind and creativity could not be explained by materialism.

Dennett on the contrary that everything can be explained by science.

What they do share in common, I think, is that they both thought they knew enough about bodies to reach such grand conclusions.

Descartes had good reasons to posit res cogitans, and to believe he understood bodies. Dennett (and company) have no good reason to think we understand matter to a minute fraction of what they believe we actually do.

That was integral to his philosophy and he could not depart into a theory that offered immortal souls to animals, as that would be contrary to Christian teachings. — Hanover

He didn't need to depart from anything. Nobody asked him to prove that he believed what the church preached; it was already taken for granted. The demonstrations were entirely gratuitous.

I note the evolving moral sensibilities that have occurred in my lifetime and I extrapolate backwards to draw the conclusion that today's ethical adherence is higher than yesterday's. Is that controversial? — Hanover

No, it's just wrong. There is no straight line from here back through European post-colonial, pre-colonial, christian, and pre-christian history, including other continents and cultures, through tribal social organizations of the Americas, Oceania, and Asian steppes. There have been many and various belief systems, moral and legal codes, religions, attitudes and practices. The time-line is by no means from the abyss to the pinnacle of human sensibility.

Gilbert Ryle and Daniel Dennett take the next step of saying it's something that doesn't exist at all. — Wayfarer

I think they see mind as an activity of the body, "minding"; more verb than noun. I wonder if Dennett and Ryle have no feeling for animals, or deny that animals feel pain and pleasure.

I read Concept of Mind so long ago (maybe thirty years but it's still on my shelves somewhere I think) that I don't remember much about it other than it's rejection of the idea of a "ghost in the machine":

Dennett, as I read him, does not deny the existence of mind, he just thinks it is not what we naively, intuitively take it to be.

Descartes had good reasons to posit res cogitans, — Manuel

Spinoza, his younger near contemporary, was smart enough to realize that there was no good reason to propose mind as substance.

You mean to say Descartes' conception of body. — Manuel

But they're defined in opposition to each other. Body is only extension with no thought, mind is only though with no extension. Even the human body is conceived of being like clay or earth, nothing alive about it, and the bodies of animals collections of mechanical parts. Man is different solely because of the divine gift of reason.

Dennett, as I read him, does not deny the existence of mind — Janus

We've been through that umpteen times. He does not deny it straight up, he says something like 'of course, I don't deny the existence of mind, but.....' - and then what comes after the 'but' amounts to denying the existence of mind. That is what eliminativists seek to eliminate. See The Consciousness Deniers.

The connection between Ryle and Dennett is that the former taught the latter, at Oxford. (Incidentally, this is a great profile of Ryle, who took over from Collingwood after the latter's untimely death. The article argues that Ryle pretty well single-handedly engineered the 'analytic-continental divide' in philosophy.)

@Wayfarer

To Descartes animals were p-zombies (he refused to accept that outward displays of pain in animals - their writhing, crying - were signs of an inner life). This belief greatly undermines his thesis that God is the one who provides the rock solid foundation - as a being who would not deceive us - for philosophy, because it's obvious that the distance between us and dogs is dwarfed by the distance between us and God. To God, we're not even a dog and if we can vivisect a dog, God could certainly do any damn thing He wishes to us, including but not limited to deception.

We've been through that umpteen times. He does not deny it straight up, he says something like 'of course, I don't deny the existence of mind, but.....' - and then what comes after the 'but' amounts to denying the existence of mind. — Wayfarer

According to my reading of Consciousness Explained (which I have read, although a while ago now) Dennett's argument does not amount to a denial of the existence of mind, but of mind as it is often still naively conceived by "folk"; as a kind of ghostly substance.

If Dennett seeks to eliminate anything I think it is qualia, not mind. And I tend to agree with him on that point, because I don't see that there is a separate quality to experiences in addition to the experience, even though on reflection it may seems as though there is. On the other hand experience is most certainly qualitative, and this is similar to saying that mind(ing) is a necessarily embodied activity, because all qualities are, in one way or another, felt bodily.

You seem to be, and to have long been, on some kind of moral crusade against Dennett and other materialist thinkers, whereas I have no objection per se, although I see all metaphysical views as being under-determined and inadequate to lived experience. I do object to views such as that animals do not feel anything, but materialism has no reason to assert that, and Descartes who apparently did assert it, was no materialist. Anyway, since we have been over this many times, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

Yes, I was aware that Dennett studied under Quine and then Ryle.

BTW, I skimmed 'The Consciousness Deniers' and I could find no quotes from "the deniers" themselves which show that they actually are denying the existence of any kind of consciousness, which is telling. I'm no fan of Galen Strawson; I think his father was a much better philosopher.

But they're defined in opposition to each other. Body is only extension with no thought, mind is only though with no extension. Even the human body is conceived of being like clay or earth, nothing alive about it, and the bodies of animals collections of mechanical parts. Man is different solely because of the divine gift of reason. — Wayfarer

Watch any frightened or injured creature for two minutes, and you know exactly what's going on, how it feels, what it needs. You know, because as an animal yourself, you cannot not know. You can deny, declare, theorize and construct elaborate philosophical arguments, but you cannot not know. Not in the 21st century, not in the seventeenth, not in ninth and not before time was reckoned in numbers.

Descartes never explained how non-feeling machines could act as if they were hurt, or why they should, or why God created human-like machines before He created man and very long before man created machines.

Every anatomist could see with his own eyes and smell with his own nose that this philosophy linking physical pain to a soul was invented nonsense. Bodies feel pain, not souls - else, why bother to torture the bodies of heretics and rebellious slaves?

Yes, many people of that time were often cruel, both to other species and to their own, for many reasons - just as so many people are today. But they didn't all set up elaborately sadistic displays to illustrate a mainstream belief. It's spectacle - like bull-fighting and public hanging - in which all the participants came for the blood and screaming.

All the apologetics are BS. Enlightenment era scientists, just like churchmen and noblemen, wanted an excuse to treat all the world and all its denizens as their property, to do with as they wished. The Bible gave them leave to sacrifice on the altar of God; Descartes gave them leave to sacrifice on the altar of Science; the national aspiration of kings and queens gave them leave to despoil other continents and enslave their peoples.

Right on!

:up:

It's all ad hom. — Hanover

Ad hominem means 'attacking the man not the argument'. I'm criticising the metaphysic which can overlook or endorse such activities. It's not an ad hominem argument. To my mind it indicates a serious deficiency of the understanding, especially significant because of the role which Descartes occupies in the formation of the modern mind.

Also, as I stated, I'm not one who favours indiscriminately judging past actors by present standards, but this seems a different kind of case (although I must admit I did say it lowered my opinion of him.)

But they're defined in opposition to each other. Body is only extension with no thought, mind is only though with no extension. Even the human body is conceived of being like clay or earth, nothing alive about it, and the bodies of animals collections of mechanical parts. Man is different solely because of the divine gift of reason. — Wayfarer

That's right. Though a distinction is drawn as you note: the principles of body were well understood, according to Descartes and the Cartesians.

The mind was more problematic. No principles could be given that accounted for our creative aspect of language use and free will, though apparently Descartes wanted to write a book about this but never could - the Church and all.

Dennett doesn't see the mental as you and I see it, for him it is an illusions "a trick", as he says, "there's no real magic" (meaning the experience you and I, and almost everybody in the world take as self evident, as they should, is somehow magical or woo, if you like).

That's a downgrade from Descartes, because Descartes was not crazy enough to think we doubted consciousness - while Dennett does.

, it's just wrong. There is no straight line from here back through European post-colonial, pre-colonial, christian, and pre-christian history, including other continents and cultures, through tribal social organizations of the Americas, Oceania, and Asian steppes. There have been many and various belief systems, moral and legal codes, religions, attitudes and practices. The time-line is by no means from the abyss to the pinnacle of human sensibility. — Vera Mont

Let's explore this then. Was Descartes a product of his time or was he fucked up even for someone living in the 17th century?

This article indicates that the animal rights movement, especially as it pertains to anti-vivisection sentiments, seems to have sprung forth in the 19th century. The article links the lack of concern for animals on the same thing Descartes did: that animals lacked souls.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513717/

Correct, but it was Descartes who was more influential, up to Newton he was considered a scientist of the highest order. Spinoza's fame was different, as far as I know.

Gassendi too and Hobbes didn't agree with Descartes. But Descartes made significant contributions to mathematics - and his view have had - and continues to have - an enormous grip on the imagination, even if we now think he is wrong.

There's scientific evidence that we are natural born dualists, very interesting literature with experiments done by Iris Berent in The Blind Storyteller, that seem to give good evidence to this view.

For good or ill (I happen to think Descartes has merits few after him have, such as attributing "common sense" - good sense - to people, that given enough evidence, nobody should be thought of as a fool and should be treated with respect), he happened to have quite horrible views on animals, but not of people, is a sad fact of the times.

BTW, I skimmed 'The Consciousness Deniers' and I could find no quotes from "the deniers" themselves which show that they actually are denying the existence of any kind of consciousness, which is telling. I'm no fan of Galen Strawson; I think his father was a much better philosopher. — Janus

You do try to defend Dennett quite a bit, I remember you telling me that he couldn't really believe that consciousness was actually an illusion, because that would make him an idiot - and he's not an idiot. But the statements are there:

“The elusive subjective conscious experience—the redness of red, the painfulness of pain—that philosophers call qualia? Sheer illusion."

Ok, he doesn't mean that, he means that consciousness is not what we take it to be. Then he is using the word unlike most people - including scientists - use it, so the onus is one him to give a clear definition of what he's talking about.

Let's explore this then. Was Descartes a product of his time or was he fucked up even for someone living in the 17th century? — Hanover

I imagine both. All his defenders keep conveniently overlooking the wife. I never met the man, so I can't know how crazy he was. It is widely known that cruelty of various kinds was and is a perennial crowd-pleaser in civilized societies, from the Roman gladiatorial combats, through cock-fighting, witch-burning, bear-baiting, the guillotine and the modern horror movie. I'm sure Descartes' act was popular.
And yet, many scientists of the 16th through 20th centuries were able to get through quite productive careers without nailing any living bodies to boards or sticking their fingers into any beating hearts. Even some philosophers lived their whole lives without demonstrating their convictions in such graphic fashion.

The article links the lack of concern for animals on the same thing Descartes did: that animals lacked souls. — Hanover

Yes. He was a very influential philosopher, just as Paul was a very influential theologian. They both told a segment of the population (bishops and scientists respectively) what they wanted to hear and the target audience lapped it up. And yet opposition did arise, and did become popular enough to win the day. ( A few days, anyway. They have little sway over industrial farming) And the people who opposed cruelty were also Christians who believed in souls.

That's a downgrade from Descartes, because Descartes was not crazy enough to think we doubted consciousness - while Dennett does. — Manuel

I quite agree, but I think this discussion is helping to understand the progression from Descartes to Dennett. Dennett's major foil is Descartes, and many of Dennett's critics note that he seems to act as if philosophy begins with him. Perhaps Descartes' metaphysical schema is such that one of it's consequences would inevitably be something like eliminative materialism, because of the way it depicted mind as a kind of ghostly substance (bearing in mind, what Descartes means by 'substance' is really nearer to 'being' or 'subject').

All that said, I recognise Descartes' genius. The invention of algebraic geometery alone provided one of the fundamental tools in the arsenal of modern scientific method.

Oh, and I agree with you about Janus' 'straw Dennett'. ;-)

It is difficult to understand how Descartes can be the architect of a modern system that simulates in each rational modern agent his incompassion in the subjection of the irrational to scientific methods. I have to conclude he is no architect, as Calvin isn't either but simply the nerve ending in societies cerebellum that makes itself aware of a throbbing vein of social types in the body. Descartes and Calvin are merely body builders who want the growing body to become aware of the pump in the extremeties they aim to hypertrophy. The body they build is one meant to destroy and oppress a foe. I use an organic analogy there to represent a prevailing ethos, that is kind of like saying machines are driven by libido.

There's scientific evidence that we are natural born dualists, very interesting literature with experiments done by Iris Berent in The Blind Storyteller, that seem to give good evidence to this view. — Manuel

That sounds interesting, but I don't think we need scientific experiments to confirm the dualistic nature of human thought; all we need to do is look at language.and its formalization in propositional logic.The dualistic nature of human thought says nothing about the nature of reality in my view.

“The elusive subjective conscious experience—the redness of red, the painfulness of pain—that philosophers call qualia? Sheer illusion."

Ok, he doesn't mean that, he means that consciousness is not what we take it to be. Then he is using the word unlike most people - including scientists - use it, so the onus is one him to give a clear definition of what he's talking about. — Manuel

Right, but I don't think he is denying that we see red or experience pain. He is rejecting qualia which, as he says, an additional 'thing': is the redness of red, the painfulness of pain; these are reifications of post hoc conceptualizations, not something we experience. We experience red and pain, not the redness of red or the painfulness of pain.

Do you think most people think of consciousness in these qualia-type terms? Even if you think they do, do you think they experience consciousness this way or just unreflectively think of it this way? Also Dennett is quite clear that he is rejecting the folk-conception of consciousness, which is naive in a very similar way that naive realism is naive. You could even call it naive realism about consciousness, where that which is reified is not objects of the senses but qualities of experience.

I think the main reason people reject Dennett's philosophy is that they think it rules out spirituality, meaning personal transformation and altered (non-dual) states of consciousness, but I don't see why that would necessarily be the case at all.

Oh, and I agree with you about Janus' 'straw Dennett'. ;-) — Wayfarer

:rofl: My "straw-Dennett": that's a rather rich irony considering you haven't even read Dennett, and you seem incapable of hearing reasonable accounts of his views from those who have read him that don't agree with your anti-Dennett campaign.

And yet, many scientists of the 16th through 20th centuries were able to get through quite productive careers without nailing any living bodies to boards or sticking their fingers into any beating hearts. Even some philosophers lived their whole lives without demonstrating their convictions in such graphic fashion. — Vera Mont

It seems the question was whether Descartes' position regarding animals was consistent with the times, and an article from the National Institute of Health says it was, so that settles it, despite your general observation that maybe some folks were ahead of their times on the matter.

It is not as if he was hammering dogs' feet in the last year, which, if you don't admit would be worse, would only be to further deny the obvious, which is that his behavior then is measurably different than now.

Ad hominem means 'attacking the man not the argument'. I'm criticising the metaphysic which can overlook or endorse such activities. It's not an ad hominem argument. — Wayfarer

How does the additional fact of now knowing of Descartes' predilection for dog hammering affect your previous understanding of the Meditations?

This just seems such an aside held out for outrage.

How does the additional fact of now knowing of Descartes' predilection for dog hammering affect your previous understanding of the Meditations? — Hanover

That it indicates his philosophical dogma is radically insufficient in a way which I hadn't previously understood. It's one thing to argue abstractions, quite another when infliction of actual suffering is involved.

This just seems such an aside held out for outrage. — Hanover

I have no particular axe to grind against Descartes. Up until this disclosure, I had no reason to think ill of him, and frequently refer to him in discussions.

It seems the question was whether Descartes' position regarding animals was consistent with the times, — Hanover

I didn't say it was inconsistent with the times - just well above beyond the call. It wasn't disregard or unconcern; it was deliberate, methodical torture. There was a lot of torture going in the times, and most people didn't object, as long it wasn't done to them. Heroic Galileo took one short stroll around the inquisitor's workshop and recanted on what he knew to be true. The times don't make torture any better; they just made worse people, and the church was a major contributor to the coarsening of people - but at least it had a purpose, something to gain. Whether he was demonstrating his religious zeal out of fear that somebody would remember his espousing of Copernican theory, or just having fun, Descartes' exhibitions served no useful purpose.

It is not as if he was hammering dogs' feet in the last year, which, if you don't admit would be worse, would only be to further deny the obvious, which is that his behavior then is measurably different than now. — Hanover

Are you really so naive as to believe that his kind don't exist anymore? That that kind of activity is not taking place, right this minute, in hundreds of basements, garages, barns and prisons?

Rose colored glasses in this thread. Modernity has been a quarterly Cartesian axis of increasing rationality over time, decreasing irrationality, and going back in time from point zero increasing rational knowledge about the premodern and decreasing irrational knowledge.

Let's face it, René Descartes, the Socrates of modern philosophy, was an a**hole! Nevertheless, it was he who relit the flame of philosophy after nearly 1.5k years of constant and unrelenting suppression by the Church and @Wayfarer, that sense of indignation or repulsion you feel towards this Frenchman is only possible because of this (now great?) Frenchman! Descartes laid the foundation on which we stand to criticize him. :cool:

Sure you’re not thinking of Voltaire?