Deleuze and Guattaris have called into question texts that have seemed foundational to our philosophical knowledge. We have taken weeks now to have a better grasp of D and G, their definitions of new terms and their oppositions to these philosophers arguments that have seemed so concrete in our learning process. Some of us are taking modern philosophy this term, and we have been studying Descartes now for a few weeks. The systematic assumptions and the methodical argument proposed by Decartes has left me swayed by his argument in many ways, but I feel that D and G propose a strong opposition at the beginning of chapter 3. It is assumed by Descartes that “everyone knows what thinking means,” and that “everyone can think… and know truth.” There are two parts to this claim. First, there is the assumption that everyone can think. Secondly, there is the assumption that people can know truth. Although D and G emphasize that these claims are unwarranted, Decartes does not make this assumption without first trying to prove his philosophical though, and I feel there are similarities between the two arguments that are not distinguished in the text.
First, there is the issue of knowing that “I think.” Descartes proves this argument by doubting anything and everything that he think he knows, that is apparent in his knowledge, and experienced in his life. When he finally can’t doubt anything else, he is able to make the claim that because he is at least thinking these thoughts he has the ability to know. In the beginning of chapter three, D and G propose the idea of the idiot. The idiot is brought about through their interpretation of the conceptual personae, and perceived as a conceptual personae. The idiot is described as “the private thinker… [that] forms a concept with innate that everyone possess on their own account of right.” The idiot within the context of the conceptual personae was depicted in class as the devils advocate or the ability to step away from what we think we know and “doubt” our knowledge. Although there is a difference drawn between them, it seems that Descartes does this exact thing throughout the cogito to prove the claim that because I am thinking, this constitutes a sort of existence.
Secondly, D and G reiterate the other claim of Descartes that because I think, I am able to know truth. I feel that it is this claim that creates the opposition between the idiot and Descartes cogito. The idiot plays the role of being “dumb” to reiterate the knowledge that is attained, and to further know the knowledge that is assumed over time. Within the cogito, Descartes does assume that through recognizing his ability to doubt and rebuild the world through assumptions there is a sense of “knowing.” Although there seems to be a difference, does the idiot not do the same thing? Does he not play dumb in order to reiterate the point or the knowledge that he has attained?
I may be misinterpreting the text, but these two oppositions two Descartes cogito seem to have similarities, just different names. Did anyone recognize or feel this same way. Also, if there seems to be a misinterpretation of the reading, I would appreciate some guidance to help me further understand.
Although Deleuze and Guattari explain that the Idiot is a conceptual persona, they believe that a “mutation” has given him a new, Russian identity. They distinguish between two types of “Idiot” established after this alteration; “the old idiot wanted…to account for what was or was not comprehensible, what was or was not rational, what was lost of saved…the new idiot wants the lost, the incomprehensible, and the absurd to be restored to him” (63). The old idiot attempts to arrive at truths through his own reasoning (he begins by casting himself into doubt); the new idiot “wills the absurd” (62). Descartes only partially fits the description of the idiot, in that, like the “old” idiot, he begins his expedition for truth by doubting all of the information he has gained throughout his life. However, once Descartes gains basic (yet accurate) knowledge of the world around him, he uses it as a groundwork for the pursuit of further knowledge. Therefore, unlike the idiot (who plays dumb to “reiterate” the knowledge that he has attained), Descartes accepts the knowledge that he has arrived at and uses it as a foundation to launch himself toward a higher understanding. Although the old idiot desires indubitable truths (which separates him from the “new” idiot), he is unable to advance past the knowledge he is forced to continually reaffirm.
ReplyDelete