René Descartes: "animals have no mind, torture them all you want"

[baker]

"He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."
-- Gandalf

It is an interesting quote, but what could be the argumentative foundation for the idea?

That consequent empiricism is overrated, potentially dangerous, and not always necessary.

Children learn by destroying and breaking things.

I'm not even remotely convinced of this. What can a child learn from vivisecting a frog in biology class? For one, they learn that it is okay to cut up live beings. It's insanity!

Take a far less loaded and very common example: a child destroying his toy car. What on earth can a child possibly learn from that?

One cannot learn from "breaking things", esp. not on the level of elementary and secondary education anything that one couldn't learn better from a textbook.

[baker]

Could the WRONG, which people do, under the pretense of 'religion' just be a completely 'FALSE rationalization', and so ACTUALLY have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with 'religion', itself?

I think they often have to do with religion indirectly, as attempts at justification.

First an example of the way science is taught in schools: What children do in "scientific experiments" is pseudoempiricism at best. Children don't actually learn anything on their own in those experiments. What they do is learn to think of and see the world in the way that the school curriculum wants them to see it. The teachers and authors of textbooks have defined all the terms. The children then learn those terms. Then they do the experiments -- which then seemingly empirically prove that the theory they've learned is true, that it "applies to the real world". But what they are actually doing in those experiments is just a going through the motions, it's a circular, self-referential endeavor.

The children don't learn or discover anything on their own in science classes; instead, they align themselves (less or more successfully) with the socio-scientific discourse that they are being exposed to. Scientific education is a circular, self-referential endeavor aimed at justifying the validity of science.


Religion works in a similar manner. Children are taught certain terms, and then they learn to perceive the world in those terms, which in turn convinces them that the terms are true. Thus, religious belief is seen as valid, justified.


A thinking process that is simultaneously deductive and inductive isn't necessarily wrong. Descartes himself showed this in how he understood the movement of an arrow. See Elster's seminal book "Sour Grapes" on this here at page 18 and onwards. Devising a theory can enable one to see the evidence that supports it.

But it's not always like this, esp. not when it comes to religion. I'm not sure it was simply that his loyalty to Catholic doctrine made Descartes think that animals have neither minds nor souls, and that therefore, it was okay to cut them up. It seems that he was trying to prove, justify Catholic doctrine, and that this is why he cut up animals.

As a Catholic, he would be, of course, eminently wrong to do so. Catholic doctrine requires no proof, no justification. Because it is defined as a revealed doctrine, not a discovered one. There can be no human proof, no human verification, no human justification for it.

In the preface to the Meditations, he does acknowledge this and says that he's devising all those proofs in the Meditations for the purpose of providing ready-made arguments for convincing non-Catholics to convert to Catholicism. Maybe his animal experiments were done in the same spirit.

So, all in all, it seems it comes down to a problem of apologetics: He found himself in a situation where he felt the need to devise justification for a religious doctrine that by definition cannot be justified or verified by any human means.

[evolution]

Could the WRONG, which people do, under the pretense of 'religion' just be a completely 'FALSE rationalization', and so ACTUALLY have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with 'religion', itself?

I think they often have to do with religion indirectly, as attempts at justification.

What IS 'religion', itself, (about)?

Peace AND harmony, and what IS Right?

Or,

War AND torture, and what IS Wrong?

Or, is 'religion', itself, NEITHER and thus some thing else?

If 'religion' is (about) some thing else, then what is that 'thing'?

First an example of the way science is taught in schools: What children do in "scientific experiments" is pseudoempiricism at best. Children don't actually learn anything on their own in those experiments. What they do is learn to think of and see the world in the way that the school curriculum wants them to see it. The teachers and authors of textbooks have defined all the terms. The children then learn those terms. Then they do the experiments -- which then seemingly empirically prove that the theory they've learned is true, that it "applies to the real world". But what they are actually doing in those experiments is just a going through the motions, it's a circular, self-referential endeavor.

The children don't learn or discover anything on their own in science classes; instead, they align themselves (less or more successfully) with the socio-scientific discourse that they are being exposed to. Scientific education is a circular, self-referential endeavor aimed at justifying the validity of science.

What IS 'science', itself, (about)?

Religion works in a similar manner. Children are taught certain terms, and then they learn to perceive the world in those terms, which in turn convinces them that the terms are true. Thus, religious belief is seen as valid, justified.

ALL children are taught 'certain terms'. But what those 'terms' actually refer to is NOT necessarily anywhere close to thee Truth.

A thinking process that is simultaneously deductive and inductive isn't necessarily wrong. Descartes himself showed this in how he understood the movement of an arrow. See Elster's seminal book "Sour Grapes" on this here at page 18 and onwards. Devising a theory can enable one to see the evidence that supports it.

"Devising" a 'theory' is JUST making a guess or an assumption about what COULD BE and NOT necessarily ANY thing about what ACTUALLY IS.

Also, this seems VERY BACKWARDS to me. "Devising" an assumption/guess about what COULD BE, and then using this 'devising a theory' as an attempt at a "justification", which will then, supposedly, enable one to see the "evidence" that supports the made up 'theory', to me, is going beyond the absurd and the ridiculousness now. The 'false rationalization' of this should be just to OBVIOUS to even mention.

'Devising a theory' ENCOURAGES people to ONLY SEE, so called, "evidence" for that guess/assumption. As PROVEN countless times throughout human history.

But it's not always like this, esp. not when it comes to religion. I'm not sure it was simply that his loyalty to Catholic doctrine made Descartes think that animals have neither minds nor souls, and that therefore, it was okay to cut them up. It seems that he was trying to prove, justify Catholic doctrine, and that this is why he cut up animals.

LOL What, so called, "catholic doctrine" was referring to IS a 'thing', which is IMPOSSIBLE to SEE with the human eyes. So, 'you', human beings, could cut up EVERY animal body for the rest of your collective years and you will still NEVER SEE what 'you' are LOOKING FOR here.

So, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in "catholic doctrine" that could be used to "justify" cutting up animal bodies, for the purposes talked about here. But surely 'you' human beings, living in the days of when this is being written, ALREADY KNEW this FACT, correct?

As a Catholic, he would be, of course, eminently wrong to do so. Catholic doctrine requires no proof, no justification. Because it is defined as a revealed doctrine, not a discovered one. There can be no human proof, no human verification, no human justification for it.

In the preface to the Meditations, he does acknowledge this and says that he's devising all those proofs in the Meditations for the purpose of providing ready-made arguments for convincing non-Catholics to convert to Catholicism. Maybe his animal experiments were done in the same spirit.

So, all in all, it seems it comes down to a problem of apologetics: He found himself in a situation where he felt the need to devise justification for a religious doctrine that by definition cannot be justified or verified by any human means.

These EXAMPLES of what that one human being did are just MORE PRIME EXAMPLES of what ALL of 'you', adult human beings, do hitherto, and up to the days when ALL-OF-THIS will be REVEALED, to 'you', human beings.

[Steve3007]

Exactly. How could he pass off their cries of pain as "automatic"?...

I think history suggests that it's surprisingly easy to do things like that both for other animals and for humans. I suspect it's largely the difficulty we have imagining ourselves outside our own culture and in a different one that makes us think otherwise.

For sure, your distress at seeing suffering when you were a child suggests that we do have, to at least some extent, an innate sense of empathy for the suffering of other sentient creatures. And that innate empathy naturally tends to be roughly proportional to the genetic closeness of those sentient creatures to ourselves, and therefore the extent to which the behaviours associated with the suffering are like those that we would display. So we tend to be more distressed by the suffering of, say, a dog than that of a spider. But behaviours that we are conditioned to see as social norms also seem to be hugely influential.

Classic examples, of course, are the normalization of the infliction or tolerance of suffering on various groups of humans during events like the Holocaust or the Rwanda massacres (or numerous earlier examples). But the massive differences in most people's attitudes towards different species of other animals that are roughly equally genetically related to us is another example. i.e. the cultural norms that tell us "eat that animals and lavish care and love on that one".

I think one reason why Descartes' religious views were probably a significant factor is just that religion is a very effective creator of social norms. That's largely its purpose.

Anecdotally, it's difficult to judge just how powerful these norms are in shaping our behaviours and attitudes because it's like trying to imagine being a different person.

[baker]

/.../ So we tend to be more distressed by the suffering of, say, a dog than that of a spider. But behaviours that we are conditioned to see as social norms also seem to be hugely influential.

Just take the example of the stigma of black cats. There are people who love cats and who treat them fairly well -- as long as the cat isn't black.

[Steve3007]

Mmmm. I'm not aware of anybody who actually harms black cats just because they consider them to be unlucky, but I guess such people probably exist somewhere. There's nowt so queer as folk.

[chewybrian]

It's difficult to even imagine that one could cause extreme pain to a dog like that without feeling empathy and great distress at the dog's suffering. But I guess it goes to show that social conditioning is a powerful force.

Look at China, for example, and the way they treat animals there.

You misspelled "people".

https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/chinas-26 ... pure-evil/

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/ ... ton-labor/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-30/ ... n/12404912

[Sy Borg]

Look at China, for example, and the way they treat animals there.

You misspelled "people".

Mistreatment of humans and mistreatment of other animals go together.

Xi and the CCP have made clear that they care nothing for people or other species, just maintaining a societal structure that leaves them on top and in charge. Standard dictator behaviour.

[Steve3007]

Suppose there existed a sentient creature who communicated that it/he/she was in pain and distress not by methods similar to ours (crying, yelping, etc) but via a small digital readout on their body which displayed the message "I am now in pain". I guess we'd feel less empathetic distress ourselves then.

That's my obvious thought for the day.

[Belindi]

How is it possible that a profound philosopher like René Descartes held a view on animals that reduces them to meaningless humps of matter?

It could be due to his rationalism, regardless of his religious affiliation.

That is not why Descartes's form of substance dualism fails. Spinoza was also a rationalist and S improved on Descartes's dualism by the claim all is natural and there is nothing that is not necessary. This claim has the corollary that the meanest little beast is as necessary as the richest and most powerful man.

Obviously Descartes was popular with the Church, as then the Church could claim some men are better than other men, not to mention our fellow mortals with four legs or none.

[Rxspence]

Rene side stepped physical existence.
I think therefore I am?
One could say, I dream therefore I think I am.
or I hallucinate therefore I think I am not.

[Rxspence]

I think therefor I am, I think animals don't therefore they are not.
I dream therefore I think I am
I hallucinate therefore I think I am not
It would appear that his previous doubts of physical existence overwhelmed him and he gave up on the subject.

[Jack D Ripper]

It could be due to his rationalism, regardless of his religious affiliation.

That is not why Descartes's form of substance dualism fails. Spinoza was also a rationalist and S improved on Descartes's dualism by the claim all is natural and there is nothing that is not necessary. This claim has the corollary that the meanest little beast is as necessary as the richest and most powerful man.

That also means that every bad action, including those of Descartes, are necessary as well. It, in a manner of speaking, excuses everything, and means that nothing one does matters; if one succeeds at something, it is something one must do; it is necessary.

Obviously Descartes was popular with the Church, as then the Church could claim some men are better than other men, not to mention our fellow mortals with four legs or none.

Descartes ran into trouble with religious authorities, even though he tried to be careful to avoid such things:

Descartes began work on Meditations on First Philosophy in 1639. Through Mersenne, Descartes solicited criticism of his Meditations from amongst the most learned people of his day, including Antoine Arnauld, Peirre Gassendi, and Thomas Hobbes. The first edition of the Meditations was published in Latin in 1641 with six sets of objections and his replies. A second edition published in 1642 also included a seventh set of objections and replies as well as a letter to Father Dinet in which Descartes defended his system against charges of unorthodoxy. These charges were raised at the Universities of Utrecht and Leiden and stemmed from various misunderstandings about his method and the supposed opposition of his theses to Aristotle and the Christian faith.

This controversy led Descartes to post two open letters against his enemies.

https://iep.utm.edu/descarte/


Really, though, he should have known that reasoning about God and religion was bound to annoy some religious people, as it sets a bad precedent for others who, from reasoning, might come to a different conclusion about religion than Descartes did. Especially with his starting point of radical doubt. One can even find today Christians writing articles complaining about it:

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?article=2790

[LuckyR]

How the powerful treat the weak is naturally of great consequence to the weak but tells a lot more about the make up of the powerful.

[Belindi]

That is not why Descartes's form of substance dualism fails. Spinoza was also a rationalist and S improved on Descartes's dualism by the claim all is natural and there is nothing that is not necessary. This claim has the corollary that the meanest little beast is as necessary as the richest and most powerful man.

That also means that every bad action, including those of Descartes, are necessary as well. It, in a manner of speaking, excuses everything, and means that nothing one does matters; if one succeeds at something, it is something one must do; it is necessary.

Obviously Descartes was popular with the Church, as then the Church could claim some men are better than other men, not to mention our fellow mortals with four legs or none.

Descartes ran into trouble with religious authorities, even though he tried to be careful to avoid such things:

Descartes began work on Meditations on First Philosophy in 1639. Through Mersenne, Descartes solicited criticism of his Meditations from amongst the most learned people of his day, including Antoine Arnauld, Peirre Gassendi, and Thomas Hobbes. The first edition of the Meditations was published in Latin in 1641 with six sets of objections and his replies. A second edition published in 1642 also included a seventh set of objections and replies as well as a letter to Father Dinet in which Descartes defended his system against charges of unorthodoxy. These charges were raised at the Universities of Utrecht and Leiden and stemmed from various misunderstandings about his method and the supposed opposition of his theses to Aristotle and the Christian faith.

This controversy led Descartes to post two open letters against his enemies.

https://iep.utm.edu/descarte/


Really, though, he should have known that reasoning about God and religion was bound to annoy some religious people, as it sets a bad precedent for others who, from reasoning, might come to a different conclusion about religion than Descartes did. Especially with his starting point of radical doubt. One can even find today Christians writing articles complaining about it:

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?article=2790

Your first rebuttal is not true. Spinoza differentiated between bad actions and good actions. Bad actions are contrary to reason and good actions are adequately reasoned actions. It follows that men are responsible for their actions, and that human freedom from evil actions depends on reason including self knowledge.

Human freedom from evil by means of reason is what efficient diplomats, legislators, teachers, peacemakers, analytic psychiatrists, medics, and followers of Socrates all live by.