In a Nutshell: Descartes


Descartes; In a Nutshell

Firstly, I’m going to say that what Descartes wrote in “Meditations of Philosophy”, the documents from which the famous quote is extracted, does not govern his beliefs. The statements provided in these documents are resources regarding solipsism and scepticism, but he does not believe in solipsism, instead he merely believes that it’s a possibility considering that external truths can not be proven to the extent that they are infallible (for example; my senses are always playing up on me, how do I know that my senses are manipulating and I’m simply misinterpreting them?)
The conclusion which Descartes brought in his writings was very conclusive, and it basically rationalised both realism and extremist philosophies such as solipsism by integrating the two. Essentially, what Descartes was trying to say is that; even if people do not exist, or if the external world is the legitimate reality, it does not matter. It does not matter because we can still observe the external world, even if it isn’t real, and we can still obtain knowledge which is compatible with pieces of knowledge.
In a sense, the resolution which Descartes founded is much like semantics: It doesn’t particularly matter if a word may not mean what I believe it to be, so long as I can identify with it and use it as though it is a legitimate, fully functional word. Descartes, in some respects, refuted solipsism and radical sceptical beliefs with these meditations. As well as that, he helped carve the future for science and modernist philosophy in western culture, and that’s why a lot of people hold such realist beliefs. Whether or not this reality is “real”, or if we cannot absolutely prove the truth of things, it is still aside from the fact that we can still perceive something and, from that “something”, gather truths which don’t conflict with other truths and consider them as knowledge.
Reality is only real inasmuch as our definition of “reality”; generally people’s definition of reality is true existence, or true life – Descartes would say that reality is no more than what we can perceive and evaluate.

The Roots of Philosophy and their Importance

The Roots of Philosophy

The creation, and eventual expansion, of Christianity throughout Western culture was gradual as not only was it a radical, more dogmatic, change from Paganism and Pre-Socratic philosophy, but because it was considered as an insult to the identity of God.  Early Christianity spoke of the Trinity of God – in divine, in spirit, and in flesh. The latter, that is – God in flesh, is deeply offensive to the traditional Philosophies which were eventually usurped by Christianity itself; even in recent years, the Holy trinity, while not as radical today, poses as an insult to Islamists and other Religious people.

But what was the purpose of Christianity, or any philosophy for that matter? Its goal was that of science is today – to discover truth, knowledge and wisdom. Christianity served as no substitute for empirical devices of searching for truth, instead it served as the device for discovering truth in itself. With this, people developed the theory of Creationism; such a theory was partially produced from the classic story of Adam and Eve.

Although many would agree that, with the predisposed knowledge available today, the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphorical tale of redemption, origin and identity; however, the ancients had little knowledge at their disposal, and creationism not only seemed  plausible – but infallible. This is not to say that, despite its inherent popularity, Creationism is impossible; instead, Creationism, like any Philosophy which is not entirely dismissed, remains as a possibility of truth. But in comparison to Evolution, its prime competitor, Creationism would seem as an unlikely choice even to radical sceptics, as the former has exponentially more empirical evidence (such as the comparison between Apes and humans, and fossilised evidence), and subsequently it seems more rational to resume that Creationism is unlikely at the very least.

Creationism, like its fellow ancient philosophies, was founded on the structure of little predisposed knowledge – like a house with sticks for supports. However, evolution, a theory not only scientific but philosophical, was founded on the seemingly intuitive knowledge which science and  empiricism promoted. In this case, the structure of evolution was supported by sturdy pillars.

Creationism, in some sense, is a quintessential example of the philosophical journey which the ancients, and their descendants, traveled.

With little understanding of the Universe, and no structural system for discovering external or historical truths, our predecessors were left to build their society with their bare hands. While this details the shortcomings of our ascendants and their philosophies, such as Creationism, it also gives unseen value to their self-reliant ingenuity. Without these metaphysical, outworn creeds, Evolution would not have been, nor would science and post-modern philosophy be as developed as it is today. From the desolate boiling pot of uncertainty and speculation grows the tree of unforeseen knowledge – a blessing which grew from one seed, a tiny speck in the ground.
While most radical philosophy delivered by the ancients and enlightened, are considered  to be creeds outworn, the philosophies in question still have intrinsic value to it – more so than what we consider grateful. For a seed, however small and insignificant to the naked eye, is still the hallmark, the blueprints, for a greater being to come – and, in this case, evolution grew.

Surge of Feminism; Humanitarian, or Biased?

Feminism: is it Humanitarian?

Feminism: is it Humanitarian?


Recently there has been a huge surge of feminism in western society, primarily as a result of the relative surge in communications technology and social media, such as Facebook. However, this surge of feminism has brought in a lot of women who misunderstand the essence of what feminism ideally sought after, and instead only using its philosophy as a means of self interest. Recently, I have been wondering if feminism is necessary at all in today’s society, as the approach of gender equality, a result which has respectfully paid off from ideal feminism, suggests that people have to start focusing on balancing individuals and not stereotypes.

Perhaps it would be wise for the self-proclaimed feminists, who seek rights only in the interest of their fellow gender, to put down their pitchforks and consider an approach in which we, as an entirety, take a humanitarian interest and pursue the welfare of every individual . We should not be condoning the equality among different genders and ethnicity, but we should aim to bring equality among every individual. Categorising genders and ethnicity does nothing to help equality, as it’s not in the interest of the individual; instead, these categories which feminists and likewise philosophical movements promote are doing no less than ruin what we really must be focusing on – man as one, and man is an entirety. If we can focus on equality for everybody, while still maintaining a sense of freedom which doesn’t breach moral and lawful ethical code, then we can stamp out the people who are victims to being abused merely for the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation and their gender. Those who choose to go down the road of focusing on stereotypes, such as the feminists who only seek the aid of women, then they damage society by commercialising these stereotypes of marginalised women and so-called abusive, over privileged males.