Descartes, Spinoza, Occam, and Machiavelli’s Philosophies
Descartes
The Method
Descartes’s new conception of truth is truth as certainty—something indubitable, something that cannot be doubted. For Descartes, certainty is linked to clarity and distinction. A truth is clear if present, and distinct if defined and differentiable from others.
Descartes realized that many truths believed to be true are later discovered to be false. He sought to create a new philosophy where everything is clear, and truth is easily distinguishable from falsehood. To achieve this, he established four rules:
- Evidence: Do not admit anything as true unless it is evident.
- Analysis: Divide complex problems into simpler parts.
- Synthesis: Reconstruct knowledge from simple ideas to the complex, remaking the truth.
- Enumeration: Review the entire process.
Applying this method, Descartes aimed to reach a simple, indubitable, clear, and distinct truth. He began by employing methodical doubt.
Methodical Doubt
Methodical doubt involves questioning all knowledge believed to be true to try and reach a single, indubitable, clear, and distinct truth.
Descartes doubted the senses, simple reasoning (in which humans are often wrong), science (proposing the possibility of deception by God or an evil genius), and external reality (unable to distinguish it from dreams). Nothing escaped his methodical doubt.
Solution of the Doubt: The Cogito
Descartes concluded that he could doubt everything except his own questioning. Cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”) became his first truth—indubitable, clear, and distinct. Descartes’s entire philosophy rests on this truth, making it the first philosophy in history to be based on the self.
Consequences of the Cogito
The consequences of the cogito are significant: the world, philosophy, God—everything rests on the self. This leads to idealism and subjectivism, with the ego replacing God as the sole criterion of truth.
The Reconstruction of Philosophy
From the cogito, Descartes sought to rebuild reality. If methodical doubt was the destructive part, metaphysics is the constructive part. This reconstruction begins with the concept of substance—something that does not need anything else to exist. The only true substance is God, but Descartes, following the classical philosophical distinction, identified three substances: God, soul, and world.
If “I think,” then “I exist” as a set of ideas, thoughts, dreams, and memories flowing within the self. Descartes identified three types of ideas that occur in the soul:
- Adventitious: Derived from the senses and potentially misleading.
- Artificial: Created by combining adventitious ideas.
- Innate: Born from the intelligible faculty, such as the idea of God.
Descartes argued that we have innate ideas, like the idea of perfection, which must have been placed in us by a perfect being (God).
Spinoza
Spinoza distinguished between the natural and social state. While Aristotle argued that humans are social by nature, seventeenth-century thinkers developed the contractarian theory, which posits that society arises from a contract between individuals. Hobbes, a proponent of this theory, argued that humans form societies for survival, as they would otherwise act according to their instincts of hatred and violence.
The natural state is the initial condition of human beings, where each individual acts according to their nature, desires, and the pursuit of dominance. This pursuit leads to conflict, as individuals seek to exert their power over others. Men, intending to exercise their power, are natural enemies (influenced by Hobbes).
In the natural state, humans could not develop or maintain their lives. Union is necessary for survival. Spinoza argued that humans guided by reason are freer in the state than alone, as they are bound by their own nature. While Hobbes advocated for an absolutist state, Spinoza favored a democratic one.
In contrast to Hobbes’s view of “man as a wolf to man,” Spinoza believed that “man is a god to man.”
The transition from the natural to the social state requires agreement among all, as humans are not born as citizens but are made into them. The state, possessing power, must ensure freedom, particularly freedom of thought. Spinoza’s ideas laid the groundwork for parliamentary democracy.
William of Occam
William of Occam advocated for a proactive vision of God, rather than the rational view proposed by Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics. He believed that the world is made by God, who created things willingly. Everything could have been otherwise.
According to Occam, only concrete things are knowable by humans. These things are captured by the senses and understood without intermediaries. Metaphysics is stripped of scientific rigor. Occam’s ideas paved the way for modern empirical science. We know accidents, but not essences.
Occam criticized the concept of universals, arguing that only particular individuals exist. He also challenged the idea that everything has a final cause (God), criticizing both efficient and final causality.
Occam defended the separation of the material and spiritual, primarily to defend the Church’s spirituality. His critique of the City of God and Aristotelian political theory is significant in this context.
Based on his theory that all existing things are concrete individuals, Occam argued that both the state and the Church should be seen as groups of individuals. This theory reflected the transformation of a changing world.
Machiavelli
In his Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli defended the idea of a Roman-style republic. However, in The Prince, he presented his most important political thought, advocating for a monarchy.
Machiavelli believed that a prince was necessary to unite the people under his charisma and strong, cohesive authority. He argued that the prince must disregard moral and ideological considerations and base political action on the analysis of the situation, focusing on how things are rather than how they should be. This approach is known as political realism. Political realism suggests that the prince should not be concerned with morality but only with reality, thus separating politics from morality.
Machiavelli viewed politics as a science. To rule effectively, the prince must consider several factors:
- Human nature is repetitive and inherently flawed: The ruler should not be fooled by optimistic claims about the goodness of their subjects. Politics is necessary because humans are flawed.
- The state should enact laws that compel citizens to act in accordance with the common good: Laws must account for the wickedness of subjects and include rigorous enforcement mechanisms.
Machiavelli believed that events are driven by virtù, understood as resolve and strength. A ruler cannot control random events. He is known for the phrase, “The end justifies the means.” The ultimate goals of the state are the peaceful life of its citizens and economic prosperity. To achieve these goals, it is legitimate to use immoral means if necessary.
Machiavelli argued that the state is sovereign and should not be subject to divine order or the citizens themselves. It must have the power and authority to supersede the Church’s influence and transform religious beliefs into civic values.
Machiavelli is considered a precursor of modern political thought.