Why does Decrates method of thinking make him one of the best philosophers?

Question

Is there a particular kind of thinking that he is always engaged in?

Answer 1

Every so often a philosopher comes along that changes the way people think about things. Descartes is sort of emblematic of a whole school of thought that was born in the 1600s, basically the birth of 'science'. He turned out to have a great influence on how we think today!

Descartes came up with the idea of the 'mechanical universe'. He said nothing moves unless it's acted on by something else, so the universe is like a big clock with gears and cogs. One of the schools at Oxford University was a 'cartesian' school (it taught Descartes ideas) and Issac Newton went there. Newton later was the one who figured out that the planets move around the sun because of gravity.

In other words Newton figured out that the whole universe is subject to the same 'natural law' as we are on earth. This was a huge shock in those days when most people thought natural laws were only in force on earth and 'the heavens' were run by the hand of God. Newton even stated these physical laws--action and reaction, momentum and inertia, gravity, etc.--and began the science of physics.

Suddenly, people understood that you learn about nature and the universe by observation, not just by reading and thinking. This was called 'natural philosophy' and is what we today call -science-.

Answer 2

I think you mean the Socratic method. As you know, Socrates was a major Greek philosopher. The "Socratic Method" is used in law schools to teach critical thinking and analysis. The method consists of questions based upon a basic assumption and each question leads to a dialog between 2 individuals. The dialog leads to an additional question and the process is repeated until the question is resolved or the original inquiry is reduced to some unresolvable issues. Wikipedia has a fairly good explanation if you just search "Socratic Method." It's not particularly easy to explain and I'll confess that I hated it when I was in law school. The professors would present a fact pattern at the beginning of each class and pick one student to analyze it. That student was questioned during the entire hour. Every answer given by the student leads to another question from the professor. Whenever a correct answer was given, the professor would alter the fact pattern to lead to new questions (it sucked!) EDIT: I see other answerers have assumed you are talking about Descartes instead of Socrates. I am not familiar with Desecrates philosophy being described as a "method", which is why I immediately thought you meant the Socratic Method. You're going to have to decide which philosopher you mean.

Answer 3

According to Descartes' philosophical system, the world is split into two distinct parts which he called "res extensa" (ie matter) and "res cogitans" (ie mind). As others here have pointed out, this division made possible 18th and 19th century science (a definite benefit). Science is the study of those aspects of nature coming under the Cartesian category of "res extensa", that which reveals its secrets to the inquiring scientist by means of objective inquiry (ie the scientific method).
Nevertheless, this very same Cartesian split (or equivalently, the scientific method, by its very construction) necessarily puts "mind" (or res cogitans) out of the province of science! Mind is an intrinsically subjective aspect of nature and thus cannot be directly accessed via objective inquiry. Which is why no matter how deep into the human brain a scientist may probe he will never come across an actual "thought" or a "sensation" Only the so-called 'Subject Of Cognizance' of the "thought" or of the "sensation" (ie the person whose brain it is) can directly experience them. Now it is undeniable that "thoughts" and "sensations" are phenomena of nature which we should try to understand. But a complete understanding requires that we find a suitable tool for the job. And clearly science which is strictly objective will not be the ideal tool.( I 100% affirm that through science we can learn a tremendous amount about mind. I am just saying that for a complete understanding, something else will clearly be needed).

Although, as others here have stressed, we owe a great debt to Descartes for being a pioneer in the study of "res extensa", nevertheless it should be remembered that the cornerstone of his philosophic system was "cogito ergo sum" ( I think therefore I am). That is to say, the surest most reliable knowledge I have is not of "res extensa" obtained by objective scientific inquiry, but rather of "res cogitans" (ie my own mind) obtained by subjective experience of my own thoughts.

Answer 4

Why do all these replies refer to Rene Descartes? The question was regarding Decrates, a nephew of Socrates.

Decrates was a musical theorist who invented the concept of decomposition.

Of course, music was a poorly-paid profession in ancient Greece, and so Decrates worked in a bakery and was unknown throughout his lifetime.

It was only after death that he was able to decompose.

Answer 5

The Cartesian method is rigorous, precise and clear. He was not afraid to call everything into question except his own existence and God's.

Answer 6

I'm still trying to figure out of you mean Socrates or Descartes. Sorry, but I'm being honest here.

Answer 7

Descartes could spell his own name. That is always a big advantage when writing text to be cited. René Descartes visits a bistro and sits at a table. A waiter comes up and asks,"vous aiment un apéritif, monsieur?"

René Descartes answers, "je pense pas."

POOF!!!

Answer 8

Never heard of the Descartes method.

I'm also not sure I would be so quick to dismiss the idea that the universe is run by a demon whose sole purpose is to screw with us. ;-)

Answer 9

I think "best philosopher" is a subjective term. Perhaps "popular" or "influential" is what you mean?

Answer 10

Yes. He was always very careful with his spelling.