Das Kapital

Das Kapital by Karl Marx
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Karl Marx's Capital can be read as a work of economics, sociology and history. He addresses a myriad of topics, but is most generally trying to present a systematic account of the nature, development, and future of the capitalist system. There is a strong economic focus to this work, and Marx addresses the nature of commodities, wages and the worker-capitalist relationship, among other things. Much of this work tries to show the ways in which workers are exploited by the capitalist mode of production. He also provides a history of past exploitation's. Marx argues that the capitalist system is ultimately unstable, because it cannot endlessly sustain profits. Thus, it provides a more technical background to some of his more generally accessible works, like The Communist Manifesto.

This study guide focuses on one component of Capital, Marx's schema of how the capitalist system functions. Marx argues that commodities have both a use-value and an exchange-value, and that their exchange-value is rooted in how much labor-power went into them. While traditionally people bought commodities in order to use them, capitalists use commodities differently. Their final goal is increased profit. Therefore, they put out money and buy commodities, in order to sell those commodities for a profit. The cycle then repeats itself. The reason why the capitalists are able to make a profit is that they only need to pay workers their value (how much it takes to keep them functional), but the workers produce more than that amount in a day. Thus, the workers are exploited. The capitalists are able to do this because they have more power, and control the means of production. Furthermore, the workers' character is negatively affected by the system. They don't own the products of their labor, and the repetitive work they have to do makes them little more than machines.

Marx presents several definitions that will be important throughout his work, so it is very important to be clear on their meanings. A use-value corresponds to the usefulness of an object, and is internal to that object. For example, a hammer is a use-value because of its contributions to building. Its use-value comes from its usefulness. In contrast, a hammer's exchange-value comes from its value relative to other objects. For example, a hammer might be worth two screwdrivers. An object doesn't have an exchange value in itself, but only in its relationship with other objects.

However, the fact that the hammer and screwdriver can be exchanged at all suggests that there must be something common between them, some means of comparison. Marx says that this is the object's value. Value means the amount of labor it takes to make the commodities. This labor theory of value is very important to Marx's theory. It implies that the price of commodities comes from how much labor was put into them. One implication of this is that objects with natural use-value, such as forests and other natural resources, do not have value because no labor went into them. One problematic question, then, is how such natural resources can have exchange-value (people do spend money on them) without benefiting from labor. It is also important to consider how Marx's conception of the roots of exchange value differs from modern economic theory. In modern theory, something's exchange value is rooted in people's subjective preferences. While the amount of labor required would be linked to the supply curve of a commodity, its exchange value is also determined by the demand curve. Marx focuses exclusively on labor.

This book also gives a general sense of Marx's approach in Capital.Here he dissects one aspect of the modern capitalist system and presents a schema for understanding why it functions as it does. Later Marx will analyze things like the role of money and the capitalist. While this book makes many historical and sociological arguments, it is largely a book of economic theory and its implications.

One thing to consider when thinking about Marx's characterization of capitalism is where this capitalistic ethic came from. Marx says that capitalists have an endless need for more money, and that the system of capitalism requires and perpetuates this attitude. Even if this is true, however, it does not explain how capitalism developed in the first place. What made people view M' as an end in itself? Where does this thirst for profit come from? Marx's description does not spend a lot of time explaining how people could have come to develop these ideas. This limitation is a potential theoretical difficulty.

Marx spends a lot of time discussing the ways in which capitalism is rooted in social institutions. Capitalism is not natural, but rather depends upon social structures, such as property laws. One social factor that is very important for Marx's theory is that the workers don't own the means of production. Because of this, they must sell their labor to others. It is precisely because workers do own their own labor that they are able to give up all claims to it, by selling it as property. As a result, they don't own the commodities they produce; somebody else owns their labor and the products of that labor. The result is that workers become alienated from their labor—they do not control or own what they create. In Marx's framework, labor-power is a commodity in the market. Its value is determined in the same way as for other commodities, and it is used by capitalists as another commodity in the production process.

Marx's labor theory of value becomes very important when looking at the commodity of labor-power. A hammer's value comes from the amount of labor put into it. What, then, is labor-power's value? Marx applies the definition of value—its value is the amount of labor needed to produce and sustain labor-power. Or more simply, it is the amount of labor needed to keep the laborer alive and functioning at his capacity. Let's say that a worker needs $100/week to survive and function. The value of his labor-power is, therefore, $100/week as well. A worker's "price" (his wage) must be at least $100/week in order for the worker to be paid at value. This concept will be very important in later chapters, when Marx will try to show that it is possible to exploit labor.

Marx's labor theory of value again makes an appearance, as he tries to explain a seeming paradox. A capitalist purchases all of the inputs needed to make a commodity (labor-power, raw materials, etc.) at their value. He also sells the end-product at its value. If this is the case, where does the surplus value come from? If there's no surplus value, then capitalism cannot exist, because there would be no profit. Marx's answer comes from the unique character of labor- power. Labor-power's use-value (what it can create) is not the same thing as its exchange-value (what is needed to sustain the worker). A worker sells himself at his value, but he produces more than this value. In this way, the capitalist gains surplus-value. This is significant, because it explains how exploitation can occur as the result of a series of freely made trades. The worker could complain that he is not being paid for the value of what he produces. However, the capitalist can reply that the worker is being paid his value. Once the worker is paid for a day's work, the capitalist has the right to use him for a day. Justice is part of the overall mode of production of the times, and as a result, this exchange can be considered "just."

Why do the workers put up with such exploitation? Couldn't they demand higher wages, that match the value their labor-power produces? Marx's answer is that the workers don't have the capacity to work without the capitalists; they require factories and other means of production. The workers are selling an abstract capacity to labor, and because of this, the capitalist is able to exploit them by only paying labor-power's value. Consider whether you think Marx's characterization of the labor market is fair. Does labor have the ability to fight exploitation and set wages closer to the value of what they produce? Think of this both historically and theoretically.

An important theme in Marx's work is class tension. According to Marx, all of history has been defined by class conflict. Modern times are no different in this regard, and are defined by tension between the capitalist and the worker. Marx describes one source of this tension in this chapter, as he mentions again the asymmetry between the use-value and exchange-value of labor-power (already discussed in Chapter 7). In this class conflict, the capitalists are the stronger class. This allows them to exert more force and define what workers will be paid. However, the fact that they are the stronger class does not simply give capitalists more bargaining power. Rather, social institutions such as property laws are defined to support the capitalists' needs. The mode of production reflects the economic system of capitalism. It will continue to do so, and continue to favor the capitalists, until it self-destructs.

It is important to realize that the capitalists cannot behave differently; there will always be tension between them and the workers. The very essence of a capitalist is his desire to gain surplus-value. The only way to do so is to exploit workers by failing to pay workers for the full value of what they produce. In order to survive, the capitalist must exploit. Thus, the tension between workers and capitalists is structural. The capitalist system requires exploitation. Measures to ease workers' hardships, such as a minimum wage or welfare are simply band-aids; they cannot change what a capitalist is.

Menelusuri Absurditas

Mitos Sisifus oleh Albert Camus

Albert Camus (1913-1960) bukanlah filsuf namun lebih kepada seorang novelis yang memiliki kecenderungan filosofis yang kuat. Dia paling terkenal dengan gagasan novelnya, seperti The Stranger dan The Plague, yang keduanya berada dalam lanskap di negara asalnya, Aljazair.

Camus belajar filsafat di Universitas Aljir, yang membawanya berhubungan dengan dua cabang utama filsafat abad ke-20: eksistensialisme dan fenomenologi. Eksistensialisme muncul dari kesadaran bahwa tidak ada makna atau tatanan yang telah ditahbiskan sebelumnya di alam semesta dan bahwa kita harus bertanggung jawab untuk menentukan makna dan ketertiban yang harus kita berikan pada kehidupan kita. Camus sangat tertarik pada eksistensialis religius, seperti Kierkegaard (meski label semacam itu tidak sepenuhnya adil bagi Kierkegard), yang menyimpulkan bahwa tidak ada yang dapat ditemukan dalam pengalaman manusia, dan ini memerlukan "lompatan iman" yang menempatkan iman yang irasional dan buta kepada Tuhan.

Fenomenologi, seperti yang dianjurkan oleh Edmund Husserl, membatasi dirinya untuk mengamati dan menggambarkan kesadaran kita sendiri tanpa menarik kesimpulan mengenai sebab atau koneksi. Seperti eksistensialisme, fenomenologi mempengaruhi Camus oleh upayanya untuk membangun pandangan dunia yang tidak menganggap bahwa ada semacam struktur rasional ke alam semesta yang dapat dipahami oleh pikiran manusia.

Gagasan ini - bahwa alam semesta memiliki struktur rasional yang dapat dipahami oleh pikiran - mencirikan tren yang lebih tua dalam filsafat Eropa yang disebut "rasionalisme." Rasionalisme dapat ditelusuri akarnya melalui Rene Descartes dan lahirnya filsafat modern. Sebagian besar filsafat Eropa abad ke-20 telah menjadi reaksi langsung terhadap tradisi yang lebih tua ini, sebuah usaha reaksioner untuk mengeksplorasi kemungkinan bahwa alam semesta tidak memiliki struktur rasional untuk ditangkap oleh pikiran.

Camus menulis The Myth of Sisyphus pada kisaran periode yang sama saat ia menulis novel pertamanya, The Stranger, yakni pada awal Perang Dunia II. Camus bekerja untuk Perlawanan Perancis di Paris saat itu, jauh dari negara asalnya Aljazair. Meskipun tidak bijaksana untuk mengurangi gagasan ke latar belakang otobiografinya, keadaan di mana esai tersebut ditulis dapat membantu kita memahami nadanya. Metafora pengasingan yang digunakan Camus untuk menggambarkan keadaan sulit manusia dan perasaan bahwa hidup adalah perjuangan yang sia-sia, keduanya membuat akal sehat datang dari seorang pria, jauh dari rumahnya, yang sedang berjuang menghadapi orang yang tampaknya mahakuasa dan rezim yang brutal.

Perhatian utama Mitos Sisifus adalah apa yang Camus sebut "tidak masuk akal." Camus mengklaim bahwa ada konflik mendasar antara apa yang kita inginkan dari alam semesta (entah itu makna, ketertiban, atau alasan) dan apa yang kita temukan di alam semesta (kekacauan tanpa bentuk). Kita tidak akan pernah menemukan dalam hidup itu sendiri makna yang ingin kita temukan. Entah kita akan menemukan makna itu melalui lompatan iman, dengan menempatkan harapan kita kepada Tuhan di luar dunia ini, atau kita akan menyimpulkan bahwa hidup itu tidak ada artinya. Camus membuka esai tersebut dengan menanyakan apakah kesimpulan terakhir ini bahwa hidup itu tidak berarti selalu menyebabkan seseorang melakukan bunuh diri. Jika hidup tidak memiliki arti, apakah itu berarti hidup tidak layak untuk dijalani? Jika memang begitu, kita tidak punya pilihan selain melakukan lompatan iman atau melakukan bunuh diri, kata Camus. Camus tertarik untuk mengejar kemungkinan ketiga: bahwa kita dapat menerima dan hidup di dunia tanpa makna atau tujuan.

Sebagai titik tolaknya, Camus menjawab pertanyaan apakah, di satu sisi, kita adalah agen bebas dengan jiwa dan nilai, atau jika, di sisi lain, kita hanya masalah yang bergerak dengan keteraturan tanpa berpikir. Mendamaikan kedua perspektif yang sama sekali tak terbantahkan ini adalah salah satu proyek agung agama dan filsafat.

Salah satu yang paling jelas - dan refleksi, salah satu fakta yang paling membingungkan tentang eksistensi manusia adalah bahwa kita memiliki nilai. Memiliki nilai lebih dari sekadar memiliki keinginan: jika saya menginginkan sesuatu, saya cukup menginginkannya dan akan mencoba mendapatkannya. Nilai-nilai saya melampaui keinginan saya karena menilai sesuatu, saya tidak begitu menginginkannya, tapi entah bagaimana saya menilai bahwa ada sesuatu yang seharusnya diinginkan. Dengan mengatakan bahwa sesuatu harus dikehendaki, saya berasumsi bahwa dunia seharusnya adalah cara tertentu. Lebih jauh lagi, saya hanya merasa dunia seharusnya adalah cara tertentu jika sama sekali tidak seperti itu: jika tidak ada pembunuhan seperti itu, tidak akan masuk akal jika saya mengatakan bahwa orang tidak boleh melakukan pembunuhan. Dengan demikian, memiliki nilai berarti bahwa kita merasa dunia seharusnya berbeda dari cara itu.

Kemampuan kita untuk melihat dunia baik sebagaimana adanya dan karena seharusnya memungkinkan kita melihat diri kita sendiri dalam dua lampu yang sangat berbeda. Paling sering, kita melihat orang lain dan diri kita sebagai orang yang rela, agen bebas, orang yang bisa memikirkan dan membuat pilihan, siapa yang bisa memutuskan apa yang terbaik dan mengejar tujuan tertentu. Karena kita memiliki nilai, kita hanya merasa bahwa kita juga harus melihat diri kita mampu mewujudkan nilai-nilai itu. Tidak akan ada gunanya menilai kualitas tertentu jika kita tidak mampu bertindak untuk mewujudkan kualitas tersebut.

Meskipun kita umumnya mengambil pandangan ini, ada juga pandangan ilmuwan, yang mencoba melihat dunia dengan cukup sederhana seperti apa adanya. Secara ilmiah, ini adalah dunia yang diilustrasikan nilai, hanya terdiri dari materi dan energi, di mana partikel tanpa berpikir berinteraksi dengan cara yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Tidak ada alasan untuk berpikir bahwa manusia adalah pengecualian terhadap hukum sains. Sama seperti kita mengamati perilaku semut yang berkeliaran, tanpa berpikir mengikuti rutinitas mekanis, kita bisa membayangkan ilmuwan alien juga mengamati kita berkeliaran, dan menyimpulkan bahwa perilaku kita sama-sama dapat diprediksi dan berorientasi pada rutinitas.

Perasaan absurditas secara efektif adalah perasaan yang kita dapatkan saat kita melihat diri kita di kedua dari dua perspektif alternatif ini. Ini adalah pandangan dunia yang benar-benar obyektif yang melihat hal-hal seperti mereka. Nilai tidak relevan dengan pandangan dunia ini, dan tanpa nilai tampaknya tidak ada artinya dan tidak ada tujuan untuk apapun yang kita lakukan. Tanpa nilai, hidup tidak memiliki makna dan tidak ada yang bisa memotivasi kita untuk melakukan satu hal dan bukan yang lain.

Meskipun kita mungkin tidak pernah mencoba merasionalisasi perasaan ini secara filosofis, perasaan absurditas adalah sesuatu yang kita semua alami di beberapa titik dalam hidup kita. Pada saat-saat depresi atau ketidakpastian, kita mungkin akan mengangkat bahu dan bertanya, "Apa gunanya melakukan sesuatu?" Pertanyaan ini pada dasarnya adalah pengakuan absurditas, sebuah pengakuan bahwa, dari setidaknya satu perspektif, tidak ada gunanya melakukan sesuatu.

Camus sering merujuk secara metaforis dengan perasaan absurditas sebagai tempat pengasingan. Begitu kita mengakui keabsahan perspektif dunia tanpa nilai, sebuah kehidupan tanpa makna, tidak ada jalan mundur. Kita tidak bisa melupakan atau mengabaikan perspektif ini. Yang absurd adalah bayangan yang dilemparkan atas semua yang kita lakukan. Dan bahkan jika kita memilih untuk hidup seolah-olah hidup memiliki makna, seolah-olah ada alasan untuk melakukan sesuatu, hal yang tidak masuk akal akan tertinggal di belakang pikiran kita sebagai keraguan yang mengganggu, mungkin tidak ada gunanya.

Pada umumnya anggapan bahwa tempat pengasingan ini-tidak masuk akal-tidak bisa dihuni. Jika tidak ada alasan untuk melakukan apapun, bagaimana kita bisa melakukan sesuatu? Dua cara utama untuk melepaskan perasaan absurditas adalah bunuh diri dan harapan. Bunuh diri menyimpulkan bahwa jika hidup tidak berarti maka tidak layak untuk dijalani. Harapan menyangkal bahwa hidup itu tidak berarti dengan cara iman buta.

Camus tertarik untuk mencari alternatif ketiga. Bisakah kita mengakui bahwa hidup itu tidak ada artinya tanpa melakukan bunuh diri? Apakah kita harus setidaknya berharap agar kehidupan memiliki makna agar bisa hidup? Bisakah kita memiliki nilai jika kita mengakui bahwa nilai tidak ada artinya? Intinya, Camus bertanya apakah kedua dari dua pandangan dunia yang digambarkan di atas layak untuk ditinggali.

Camus bukanlah seorang filsuf dan dia tidak tertarik untuk melibatkan pemikir tersebut dalam debat intelektual. Seperti di bab sebelumnya, di mana ia menolak rasionalisme, Camus tidak berusaha untuk menolak para pemikir ini. Dia tidak memberi kita argumen mengapa pemikiran mereka diajukan, namun hanya memberi kita alasan mengapa dia menganggap pemikiran mereka tidak memuaskan.

Camus mengurangi masalah yang menarik baginya menjadi dua fakta dasar: pertama, orang itu mengharapkan dan berharap menemukan semacam makna di dunia ini, dan kedua, bahwa apa pun makna yang mungkin dimiliki dunia ini tersembunyi dari manusia. Penting untuk dicatat bahwa Camus tidak menyangkal bahwa Tuhan itu ada atau bahwa ada beberapa makna atau tujuan yang melekat di balik segala hal. Dia hanya mengklaim bahwa dia tidak memiliki cara untuk mengetahui apakah ada Tuhan atau makna atau tujuan. Tujuannya dalam The Mitos Sisyphus adalah untuk menentukan apakah hidup dapat hidup dengan apa yang dia ketahui atau tidak. Artinya, dapatkah dia hidup dengan dua fakta dasar itu, atau apakah dia membutuhkan baik untuk mengharapkan sesuatu yang lebih (Tuhan atau maksud atau tujuan) atau untuk melakukan bunuh diri?

Yang absurd adalah hubungan yang menghubungkan dua fakta dasar ini. Adalah tidak masuk akal bahwa saya harus mengharapkan alam semesta memiliki makna ketika alam semesta itu sendiri begitu tegas diam. Karena yang absurd adalah hubungan yang menghubungkan dua fakta dasar yang bisa kita ketahui secara pasti, Camus menegaskan bahwa yang absurd adalah hubungan mendasar kita dengan dunia. Yang tidak masuk akal adalah kebenaran mendasar dan Camus menganggapnya sebagai kewajibannya untuk mengikuti logikanya.

Yang absurd juga pada dasarnya adalah sebuah konflik. Kita menuntut makna tapi alam semesta tidak memberi kita apa-apa. Ketidakpuasan yang kita rasakan dengan hidup kita yang mendasar sangat mendasar bagi yang absurd, dan setiap upaya untuk mengatasi ketidakpuasan ini adalah usaha untuk melepaskan diri dari absurditas.

Keluhan Camus terhadap keempat pemikir yang dibahas dalam bab ini adalah bahwa, masing-masing dengan caranya sendiri mencoba melepaskan diri dari absurditas. Untuk melakukan ini, setiap pemikir harus menolak salah satu dari dua fakta dasar yang Camus telah ambil sebagai titik tolaknya. Jaspers, Chestov, dan Kierkegaard menolak kebutuhan akan alasan dan tujuan di dunia ini. Mereka menganut gagasan bahwa dunia itu irasional, dan menemukan Tuhan dalam gagasan ini. Husserl menolak gagasan bahwa kita tidak dapat menemukan makna di dunia ini, mengklaim menemukan esensi di balik fenomena bisu.

Camus bukan filsuf, dan dia tidak menuduh penalaran pemikir ini salah. Dia hanya menuduh mereka tidak menemukan konten apa yang bisa mereka ketahui. Semua empat melampaui fakta pengalaman dasar dan tak terbantahkan untuk menegaskan bahwa ada sesuatu yang lebih, sesuatu yang transenden, sesuatu yang dapat menyelesaikan ketidakpuasan yang disebabkan oleh konfrontasi mereka dengan yang tidak masuk akal. Mereka tidak salah dalam melakukan hal itu, tapi mereka menghindari pertanyaan yang tampaknya membuat Camus mendasar: apakah perlu untuk menegaskan bahwa ada sesuatu yang lebih untuk hidup? Masalah Camus adalah masalah hipotetis: jika tidak ada yang lebih dari manusia rasional di alam semesta yang tidak masuk akal, dapatkah kita hidup dengan absurditas situasi itu?

Rute yang Camus bawa ke sini berkomitmen untuk menghindari filsafat. Dia bermaksud tertarik hanya pada apakah proposisi tertentu dapat ditinggali, bukan apakah itu benar. Jika dia mencoba untuk menegaskan posisi metafisiknya sendiri, jika dia mencoba untuk mengklaim bahwa kasus semacam itu, maka dia akan dibebani tanggung jawab untuk membuktikan superioritas posisi metafisiknya terhadap para filsuf lainnya. .

Semua ini relevan karena Camus mendekati metafisika dengan sangat berbahaya saat dia menegaskan bahwa yang absurd adalah hubungan mendasar kita dengan dunia dan bahwa kebutuhan kita akan alasan dan keheningan alam semesta adalah dua fakta dasar keberadaan manusia. Camus mungkin membela dirinya sendiri dengan mengatakan bahwa pernyataan ini tidak berasal dari pengetahuan positif tentang sifat dunia, tapi lebih merupakan semua yang tertinggal saat dia menyangkal memiliki pengetahuan positif apa pun. Yang absurd adalah hubungan mendasar kita dengan dunia karena tidak bergantung pada klaim untuk mengetahui sesuatu tentang dunia di luar apa yang diberikan kepada kita.

Determinan Adopsi E-Commerce Pada UKM

Conception of Sensory Experience

A Discourse on the Method by René Descartes
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

The Discourse on the Method is a fascinating book, both as a work of philosophy and as a historical document. Descartes lived and worked in a period that Thomas Kuhn would call a "paradigm shift": one way of thinking, one worldview, was slowly being replaced by another. Descartes's work, while part of the new paradigm, still has one leg in the old mode of thought.

The old, waning worldview was scholastic Aristotelianism. The Aristotelian paradigm had a conception of the mind, of knowledge, and of science that may seem very alien to us today, but this conception held sway over Western thought for about two thousand years. According to the Aristotelian tradition, the mind proper—what is exclusively "inside the head"—is limited to reason and understanding. Sensory perception, imagination, will, and so on, make reference to things outside the mind and so are not purely mental. Rather, they are the link that connects us to the outside world. According to Aristotle, there is no distinction between what I perceive and what is "out there." Thus, sensory experience gives us direct and immediate knowledge of objects in the world.

Science, in this worldview, is a matter of taking the immediate evidence of sensory experience and deducing certain conclusions from it. The sensory experience is indubitable, and the deductions are logical, so all scientific knowledge is based on absolute certainty.

One of Descartes's most significant contributions to the scientific revolution is his conception of sensory experience, imagination, and will as being just as much subjective mental phenomena as reason and understanding. His systematic doubting questions how it is that we can be certain about what we perceive. Descartes draws a sharp distinction between what our senses report to us and what is "out there."

This re-conception of the mind shakes the foundations of Aristotelian scholasticism. If sensory experience is no longer self-evident, then we can no longer deduce certain scientific truths from these observations. Essentially, Descartes makes us sharply aware of what goes into a scientific observation. It is not a purely neutral and objective act of seeing the world as it is; it is an interpretive act that must be undertaken with great care and circumspection.

The scientific paradigm that we have today owes a great deal to Descartes. Today, we have taken Descartes's method one step further. Now, we conclude that we can never have absolute certainty in the sciences. All we can hope for are sound theories that are supported by careful observations.

Descartes himself does not reach this conclusion. To a large extent, he is still set on finding certainty. His search for certainty, beginning with the famous line "I am thinking, therefore I exist," has largely defined the course of a great deal of philosophy since his time. We can debate whether Descartes is right in having found certainty in this claim, and we can debate what kind of knowledge this is, but it seems clear that it is not a kind of knowledge that is applicable to science as a whole. In finding this certainty, Descartes hopes to rebuild science in the Aristotelian method of deduction from certain first principles. In hindsight, this effort may seem a bit misguided.

Though his philosophy of science may be a bit askew, the philosophical method Descartes uses in part four of the Discourse has proven extremely valuable. His method of skeptical doubt has raised important philosophical questions concerning how we can be certain of, or even know, anything at all. His re-conception of what the mind is has largely defined the shape of Western psychology and philosophy ever since. His assertion that he is essentially a thinking thing and that his mind is distinct from his body has also raised a number of important philosophical questions: what is my relationship with my mind? What is my relationship with my body? If they are distinct, what is the causal connection between the two? And so on. Effectively, Descartes frames the questions that have preoccupied what we now call "modern philosophy."

The turning point in Descartes's intellectual development occurred on November 10, 1619. He had attended the coronation of Ferdinand II in Frankfurt, and was returning to serve in the army of Maximilian of Bavaria. Due to the onset of winter, he holed himself up for a day, alone in a stove-heated room. With nothing else to occupy him, he set about thinking.

He first mused that accomplishments of single individuals are usually more perfect than group efforts. Cities and buildings are more beautiful when they are made according to a single plan than when they are patched together piecemeal. Similarly, laws are better when they come from a single mind than when they evolve gradually over time. Descartes cites God's law as an instance of this perfection. These musings suggest to him that a person is best served by following the guidance of his reason alone, and not letting his judgments be clouded by his appetites and by the opinions of others.

While it would be impossible to resolve the imperfections of a state or a body of sciences by tearing it all down and starting again from scratch, Descartes suggests that such a method is not quite as unreasonable on the individual level. He decided to let go of all his former opinions at once, and re-build them anew according the exacting standards of his own reason.

Descartes is very careful, first of all, to point out that this method is meant only on an individual level, and he strongly opposes those who would try to topple a public institution and rebuild it from the ground up. Second, he reminds us that he only wants to discuss his method with us; he is not telling us to imitate him. In particular, he notes that there are two types of people for whom this method would be unsuited: those who think they know more than they do and who lack the patience for such careful work, and those who are modest enough to think that they are more capable of finding out the truth if they follow a teacher. Descartes would count himself among this second group if he hadn't had such a number of teachers and embarked on so many travels as to realize that the opinions of even learned men vary greatly.

Before abandoning his former opinions entirely, Descartes formulates four laws that will direct his inquiry: First, not to accept anything as true unless it is evident; this will prevent hasty conclusions. Second, to divide any given problem into the greatest possible number of parts to make for a simpler analysis. Third, to start with the simplest of objects and to slowly progress toward increasingly difficult objects of study. Fourth, to be circumspect and constantly review the progress made in order to be sure that nothing has been left out.

An obvious starting place was in the mathematical sciences, where a great deal of progress and certain knowledge had been achieved by means of demonstration. Descartes found his work made considerably easier if, on the one hand, he considered every quantity as a line, and, on the other hand, developed a system of symbols that could express these quantities as concisely as possible. Taking the best elements of algebra and geometry, he had tremendous success in both these fields. Before applying this method to the other sciences, Descartes thought it well to find some philosophical foundations for his method.

If we were to identify a starting point for modern philosophy, November 10, 1619 would be as good a date as any. We might pinpoint precisely the moment that Descartes resolved to cast all his former opinions into doubt. This process of methodological doubt is central to Descartes, and indeed to most of modern philosophy. The results Descartes achieves by employing this method of doubt are discussed in Part Four of theDiscourse, so we will comment on his method in greater detail there.

It is important, of course, that Descartes does not simply scrap everything he knows, or else he would have no guidance in rebuilding his knowledge. The four rules he lays out are meant as guidelines, so that he will be able to rely on them, and not on unnoticed prejudices. Descartes had initially collected twenty-one rules entitled Rules for the Direction of Our Native Intelligence in 1628, but left the manuscript unpublished. The four rules we find here can be read as a major abbreviation of that effort. Essentially, they demand that an inquiry proceed slowly and carefully, starting with basic, simple, self-evident truths, building toward more complex and less evident propositions.

Descartes assumes a certain kind of theory of knowledge that was pretty much unquestioned in his day. In modern philosophical language, we call this a foundationalist epistemology. It sees knowledge as built up from simple, self-evident propositions, to higher and more complex knowledge. The theory states that if we were to analyze any complex proposition, we could break it down into increasingly smaller, simpler pieces until we were left with simple, non-analyzable propositions. These basic propositions would be either self-evidently true or self-evidently false. If they were all true, then we would know that the original complex proposition was also true. Of course, there are different variations of foundationalist epistemology; for example, the epistemology will shift depending on how the analysis is supposed to take place or on what the basic propositions are supposed to look like. But the general idea can be applied to Descartes easily. Knowledge is built up like a skyscraper, with the higher, complex knowledge built on simple, sturdy foundations.

This is just one of a number of theories of knowledge that are batted about these days. Another theory that will come into play later in the Discourse is a coherentist epistemology, one that states that knowledge is more like a circle than a skyscraper. According to this theory, there is no foundational knowledge that is more basic than other knowledge. All knowledge fits together in such a way that it is internally coherent, but there is no fundamental self-evident proposition that is itself beyond doubt and that justifies all the other propositions. A statement is true because it is consistent with everything else we know to be true, not because it can be analyzed into simple parts.

The reason that a foundationalist epistemology seems natural to Descartes at this point is that this is the epistemology that philosophy had inherited from Aristotle. As we have noted already in other sections of this SparkNote, Aristotelian scientific method works according to a system of syllogism and demonstration, where complex truths are logically deduced from simpler ones. This method implies a theory of knowledge according to which complex truths are built upon simpler ones that serve as an unquestioned bedrock of knowledge.

It is significant that Descartes should choose mathematics to study according to this method. Mathematics has had far more success than any other field (except logic) with deductive reasoning. Math is built upon simple, self-evident axioms that are then used, along with some rules of inference, to derive proofs of more complex propositions.

Descartes is not only one of the greatest philosophers of the modern world, he is also one of its greatest mathematicians. His discussion of algebra and geometry alludes to his discovery of analytic geometry that brought those two fields together. Until Descartes, algebra and geometry were two totally separate fields of study. He invented the Cartesian co-ordinate system that every math student knows and loves. That's the co-ordinate system with the x-axis and the y-axis that allows you to plot lines and curves and whatever other shapes you please. Geometrical figures could be plotted onto the co-ordinate grid, and since every line and curve on the grid corresponds to an equation, geometrical figures can be expressed as equations. Geometrical figures become algebraic equations, and algebraic equations can be graphed as geometrical figures. This all seems pretty commonplace to us today, but if you try to imagine solving math problems without graphing anything you'll begin to understand the colossal contribution Descartes made to mathematics.

"...I, Me, and My Self..."

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Leviathan, Hobbes's most important work and one of the most influential philosophical texts produced during the seventeenth century, was written partly as a response to the fear Hobbes experienced during the political turmoil of the English Civil Wars. In the 1640's, it was clear to Hobbes that Parliament was going to turn against King Charles I, so he fled to France for eleven years, terrified that, as a Royalist, he would be persecuted for his support of the king. Hobbes composed Leviathan while in France, brilliantly articulating the philosophy of political and natural science that he had been developing since the 1630's. Hobbes's masterwork was finally published in 1651, two years after Parliament ordered the beheading of Charles I and took over administration of the English nation in the name of the Commonwealth.

Leviathan's argument for the necessity of absolute sovereignty emerged in the politically unstable years after the Civil Wars, and its publication coincided with that of many Republican treatises seeking to justify the regicide (killing of the king) to the rest of Europe (John Milton's Tenure of Kings and Magistrates is a famous example of these regicide tracts). Not only was the political argument of Leviathan controversial at the time of its publication, but the philosophical method employed by Hobbes to make his claims also scandalized many of his contemporaries--even those writers, such as Robert Filmer (the author of the Royalist tract Patriarcha), who otherwise supported Hobbes's claims for absolute sovereignty.

Hobbes's materialist philosophy was based upon a mechanistic view of the universe, holding that all phenomena were explainable purely in terms of matter and motion, and rejecting concepts such as incorporeal spirits or disembodied souls. Consequently, many critics labeled Hobbes an atheist (although he was not, in the strict sense). Associated with both atheism and the many deliberately terrifying images of Leviathan, Hobbes became known as the "Monster of Malmsbury" and the "Bug-bear of the Nation." In 1666, Hobbes's books were burned at Oxford (where Hobbes had graduated from Magdalen College in 1608), and the resulting conflagration was even blamed in Parliament for having started the Great Fire of London. The chaotic atmosphere of England in the aftermath of the Civil Wars ensured that Hobbes's daring propositions met with a lively reaction.

Hobbes knew that Leviathan would be controversial, for not only did the text advocate restoration of monarchy when the English republic was at its strongest (Oliver Cromwell was not instituted as Lord High Protector until 1653, and the Restoration of Charles II did not occur until 1660), but Hobbes's book also challenged the very basis of philosophical and political knowledge. Hobbes claimed that traditional philosophy had never arrived at irrefutable conclusions, that it had instead offered only useless sophistries and insubstantial rhetoric; he thus called for a reform of philosophy that would enable secure truth--claims with which everyone could agree. Consequently, Hobbesian philosophy would prevent disagreements about the fundamental aspects of human nature, society, and proper government. Furthermore, because Hobbes believed that civil war resulted from disagreements in the philosophical foundations of political knowledge, his plan for a reformed philosophy to end divisiveness would also end the conditions of war. For Hobbes, civil war was the ultimate terror, the definition of fear itself. He thus wanted to reform philosophy in order to reform the nation and thereby vanquish fear.

Earlier in the seventeenth century, Francis Bacon--for whom Hobbes had served as secretary in his youth--had also proposed a reform of philosophy, a reform he called the "Great Instauration." Bacon's program was an inductive philosophy based upon the observation of natural facts ("inductive" reasoning derives general principles from particular instances or facts); the experimental manipulation of nature of Bacon's scheme was very influential for the development of the historical period commonly called the Scientific Revolution, and also formed the backbone of the English Royal Society. Like Hobbes's, Bacon's system rejected traditional philosophical knowledge as untrustworthy, instead embracing nature as the only sure basis for all claims for truth. But Hobbes argued that the experimentalist program was also unsuccessful in providing secure, indisputable knowledge. Hobbes therefore rejected the Baconian system and argued vehemently against it. Hobbes's own deductive scientific philosophy was not experimental--in "deductive" reasoning, a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises, rather than being inferred from instances of these premises--but Hobbes maintained that it provided better understanding of the universe and society than both traditional philosophy and experimental science.

Leviathan attempted to create controversy in politics and in science, radically challenging both contemporary government and philosophy itself; yet, despite its very invocation of controversy, Leviathan sought ultimately to annihilate controversy for good. Hobbes's philosophical method claimed to provide indisputable conclusions, and its depiction of the Leviathan of society suggested that the Hobbesian method could put an end to controversy, war, and fear. Hobbes's philosophy was highly influential in certain sectors (Hobbesism was a fashionable intellectual position well into the eighteenth century). However, Hobbes, who died in 1679, never lived to see his work achieve the widespread and totalizing effects for which he had hoped. Excluded from the Royal Society for his anti-experimentalist stance and derided by many contemporaries as an immoral monster, Hobbes neither transformed the nation nor reformed philosophy as he had envisioned. Nonetheless, Hobbes has had a lasting influence in the history of Western philosophy, as he is credited with inaugurating political science; his crowning achievement, Leviathan is still recognized as one of the greatest masterpieces of the history of ideas. Written during a moment in English history when the political structure, social structure, and methods of science were all in flux and open to manipulation, Leviathan played an essential role in the development of the modern world.

Leviathan is divided into four books: "Of Man," "Of Common-wealth," "Of a Christian Common-wealth," and "Of the Kingdome of Darknesse." Book I contains the philosophical framework for the entire text, while the remaining books simply extend and elaborate the arguments presented in the initial chapters. Consequently, Book I is given the most attention in the detailed summaries that follow. Hobbes begins his text by considering the elementary motions of matter, arguing that every aspect of human nature can be deduced from materialist principles. Hobbes depicts the natural condition of mankind--known as the state of nature--as inherently violent and awash with fear. The state of nature is the "war of every man against every man," in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. This state is so horrible that human beings naturally seek peace, and the best way to achieve peace is to construct the Leviathan through social contract.

Book II details the process of erecting the Leviathan, outlines the rights of sovereigns and subjects, and imagines the legislative and civil mechanics of the commonwealth. Book III concerns the compatibility of Christian doctrine with Hobbesian philosophy and the religious system of the Leviathan. Book IV engages in debunking false religious beliefs and arguing that the political implementation of the Leviathanic state is necessary to achieve a secure Christian commonwealth.

Hobbes's philosophical method in Leviathan is modeled after a geometric proof, founded upon first principles and established definitions, and in which each step of argument makes conclusions based upon the previous step. Hobbes decided to create a philosophical method similar to the geometric proof after meeting Galileo on his extended travels in Europe during the 1630's. Observing that the conclusions derived by geometry are indisputable because each of constituent steps is indisputable in itself, Hobbes attempted to work out a similarly irrefutable philosophy in his writing of Leviathan.