17th Century Features of Philosophy
Compared to Renaissance philosophy, the main features of 17th century philosophy can be stated as follows:
1. Renaissance philosophy, like the entire cultural environment it developed in, is a philosophy in a state of exploration and research, still not fully established. 17th century philosophy, on the other hand, will compile and consolidate the achievements of the Renaissance, developing a thought connection with unity and coherence.
2. Renaissance philosophy, which took ancient philosophy as its example and reflected it in many ways, had created a colorful tableau of thoughts. 17th century philosophy, on the other hand, is a somewhat exemplary thought structure with some overlaps in the problems it addresses and their processing. What gives it this consistency is the fact that it found the example of knowledge in mathematics and physics. Mathematics, the most original and greatest achievement of the Renaissance, showed that we can grasp nature correctly with mathematical concepts; therefore, reason and philosophy began to focus on these areas. It had been demonstrated that there is a harmony in nature. Therefore, it is said that this method should be applied to other realms of existence as well. The claims of the unity of nature and its mathematical structure are the main thoughts of mathematical physics. Since nature is structured mathematically, the measurable quantitative aspects of objects are the real truths. Therefore, in knowledge, there should be relationships between the measurable aspects of objects and their reconstruction from these basic elements, and thus, clear and therefore true knowledge is attained (Galileo).
The initiator of 17th-century philosophy is Descartes (1596-1650). He first brought forth the problems of this philosophy and first attempted their solutions. Those who came after him will delve into the same problems and work along the same lines of solution attempts. In this regard, 17th-century philosophy is Cartesianism. Descartes is also a creative mathematician: he became the founder of analytic geometry by applying the method of arithmetic to geometry. According to Descartes, If philosophy is to have a connection with true knowledge, it must use the methods of analytic geometry and mathematical physics.
Descartes, who did not find what philosophy had put forward before reliable and embarked on a path to make a radical correction in philosophy based on the example of mathematical knowledge, finds the solid foundation he is looking for to build his new knowledge structure in the proposition “I think, therefore I am”. He goes through a long road of doubt to reach here. However, the basis he found is so strong, so clear that all types of existence (oneself, God, surroundings, other people) that doubt had eliminated regain their reality and become reliable. The concept of God is like a lever in the process of rebuilding reality in all its domains: Descartes says that when we look into consciousness, we see that the concept of God is present here.
Since we call God the most real existence, God cannot be compatible with non-existence; it would be a contradiction to think that God does not exist. Since God is also the most perfect existence, He determines me. We can believe that neither deceives, therefore we can also believe that the world of objects exists and our memory does not deceive us.
The thoughts that we find ready in our consciousness, just like the concept of God, are called “innate thoughts”. They are clear and distinct, therefore they have high value in terms of knowledge. In contrast, thoughts that come from outside our consciousness or thoughts created by our imagination are unclear and confused; their value in terms of knowledge is low.
In the discussion initiated by Descartes’ philosophy on the method of knowledge, Pascal (1623-1662) and Bayle (1647-1706) argued that the universal method proposed by Descartes cannot illuminate every subject, and the answers to important questions such as “What is God? What is the meaning of human life?” can only be found through the light of the heart.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who advocated consistent correctness and was less influenced by Descartes, believed that the source of all kinds of knowledge is experience, and the purpose of knowledge is for humans to dominate their environment – nature and culture. The task in philosophy is to achieve this. The goal is to connect the clues to the “reasons” that are always the real truth. In the world of material objects, all designs without a solid foundation are mere illusions, such as “freedom” or “non-material soul”. By approaching events with the method of mathematics, we can get rid of such illusions; then emotions don’t come into play. The influence of Descartes is clearly seen in this understanding.
In fact, Spinoza (1632-1677) was heavily influenced by Descartes’ methodological approach. We can see this from the very beginning of his work: like Descartes’ statement “I think, therefore I am,” Spinoza takes a single knowledge, the knowledge of God, as the starting point in his teachings and, like Descartes, derives all remaining knowledge from this foundation with a deductive method, just like deriving shapes in geometry from space.
Leibniz (1646-1716) can also be considered to be following Descartes’ path in terms of his main approach to methodology and understanding of knowledge. Because according to him, the method of mathematics is the only reliable method to reach true knowledge. Just as in mathematics, when we perform calculations with concepts in philosophy, all differences in philosophy will disappear. Like Descartes, Leibniz also seeks fundamental truths such as the proposition “I think, therefore I am” that carries the entire system of Descartes: There are a priori knowledge for Leibniz as well to justify other truths and to find new ones, and these truths are necessary for reason, thinking of their opposites leads to contradiction. The truths of reality, on the other hand, are only contingent. Leibniz’s philosophy, with its reconciliatory feature, does not disregard empirical knowledge; but it is fundamentally rationalist, giving great value to knowledge derived from reasoning.
In addition to method and knowledge, another topic that 17th century philosophy focuses on is the problem of existence, and the center of this problem is the concept of substance.
Descartes, who begins the problem with this concept again. According to him, there are three substances, one of which is infinitely (God), and two of them are finite (soul and body), which are essentially and structurally different from each other. The attribute of the soul is thinking, and the attribute of the body is occupying space. a, it is space. These two qualities cannot compromise or coexist with each other. The fundamental quality of an object being space has led Descartes to a complete mechanistic physics: real movements. Movement is a change of place, which occurs through direct collisions and pressures between objects. In this physics, “nature” is nothing more than a machine that operates according to the laws of motion, and living beings are merely automata within this machine. However, in mental events, we encounter the appearances of a substance that is essentially different from matter. How can the body, which is the material aspect of a human, and the soul establish a relationship with each other? Although Descartes explains this relationship as a collaboration, a mutual interaction, this solution is not convincing to understand how these two incompatible elements can coexist and remains a problem for later.
The main views in the development of the problem of existence after Descartes: According to Hobbes, a consistent materialist, everything that is a substance can only be material. There is no entity called “soul”; no matter how real mental events are, their foundations are still material.
The main concern of thinkers known as Occasionalists has been the problem of the mind-body relationship that Descartes could not solve convincingly. According to them, God is the one who establishes this relationship; He is the real cause. The will that reaches the body from the soul in a person or the stimulation transmitted from the body to the soul are both only intermediate causes in establishing this relationship. In the end, God has made Himself the sole cause of everything that happens in the universe, not only between the body and the soul, but also between all existing things.
In Spinoza’s concept of substance, there is a monist view: There is only one substance, which Spinoza calls God; he also calls it nature. All existing things have emerged from the essence of God with a mathematical-logical necessity; therefore, they are in essence the same as God (pantheism). Substance (God) reveals itself with certain characteristics, with certain directions of realization. From these individual monad embodies a unique perspective of the universe, creating a holistic network of interconnections. These monads, being self-contained and possessing mental qualities, can be viewed as active centers of power with the ability to conceptualize. As each monad designs the entire universe from its own perspective, they become unified within a larger framework, transcending their individual existence. However, despite this unity, each monad retains its own distinct characteristics and autonomy. Due to the clarity and distinctness of the design of the monad, it is different from all other monads. Therefore, there are no two things in this world that are exactly equal to each other. Monads are arranged among themselves according to the clarity and distinctness in their designs: At the top, God, who constantly designs the entirety of the universe, and at the bottom, there is matter that lacks design consciousness. The remaining beings are arranged between these two. Activity is also proportional to the clarity of design; God, who has the clearest design, is therefore the most effective being. The relationship between monads, which do not have open windows to each other and therefore cannot influence each other, is provided by the “pre-established harmony,” which is a divine arrangement. The relationship between body and soul also takes place within this harmony. The body and the soul function parallel to each other, just like two clocks set together.
From such a metaphysics, Leibniz developed a physics of an organic nature. In his own words: “Nature is like a pond filled with fish.” The continuous mechanical connection in nature, whose departure never breaks, is a tool under the command of God’s desire. However, Galileo and Descartes understood nature as a necessary mechanism without any desire in it.
The focus of Descartes’ philosophy is centered around theoretical problems such as knowledge and existence. He did not systematically address practical issues such as ethics, state, religion, etc., like he did with theoretical problems. For example, we learn about his thoughts on ethics from his letters. These thoughts follow the path of Stoic ethics; they are rational like it. According to Descartes, virtue is overcoming the body of the soul. In order to do this, it is necessary to be able to clearly and explicitly identify what is truly valuable and to deeply desire it. Evil arises from the bondage of the will to emotions, in other words, to our material aspect. (Indeed, deception arises from the will blindly accepting what the senses bring). Therefore, both from evil and from error, only the clear and explicit designs of the mind can be obtained. can be escaped; just like it is true, it can also be considered good with the knowledge of reason. Thus, for Descartes, the foundation of ethics also becomes “thinking”, which is the starting point of the system.
In contrast to Descartes, the main subject of Hobbes’ philosophy is the doctrine of the state, which is related to action (practice). Hobbes considers the state as a created entity in line with his naturalistic materialist attitude. Because, according to him, what is real and natural is only the individual. The state is a later created artificial institution. Hobbes approaches the establishment of the state (society) and this problem based on a certain understanding of human beings: humans are selfish creatures; the desire to sustain and develop their existence is their fundamental motive. Therefore, humans always want all the worldly blessings for themselves. But since everyone wants this, a situation of “war of all against all” arises, in this situation “man is a wolf to man”.
This is the “state of nature”. This is where an end is put to this situation that contradicts the fundamental desire of humans to exist and develop. In other words, with the concern of ensuring general security, everyone transfers their “right to use force” to an authority: thus the state is established. This is the “state of citizenship”. Hobbes derives the concepts of law and morality from this established state: what serves the general security, the reason for the establishment of the state, is “good” and “just”; what does not serve is “bad” and “unjust”. Therefore, morality and law exist because of the state. Religion also gains meaning only within the framework of the state: Only the beliefs recognized as legal by the state are considered true. In order for the state to fulfill its duty (ensuring general security), its authority must be complete and unconditional. Hobbes, who said “the state must be like a giant,” gave the name of a giant mentioned in the Torah to a work that deals with the subject of the state and named it “Leviathan”.
Spinoza’s moral doctrine, like Hobbes’, takes the instinct of self-preservation as its starting point. Spinoza, who analyzes human emotional life with a naturalistic-mechanistic understanding. regards self-preservation as the basic emotion. Finding the sense of “protecting and developing ourselves” is the basis for all other emotions. The foundation of ethics is also this instinct, this feeling: “Good” is what is in accordance with the feeling of protecting and developing ourselves, and “bad” is what is contrary to this feeling. There is nothing independent, self-contained as good or bad.
According to Spinoza, the body thrives when it is strong. The development of the soul, on the other hand, depends on being competent in thinking. In other words, a virtuous soul is a competent one that can think clearly. The ability to think clearly provides knowledge of what is worth achieving.
Similar to Descartes, there is a strong connection between being “active” and being “virtuous” in Spinoza’s philosophy. A passive mind, surrendered to emotions and passions, is in a confused and chaotic state, thus lacking virtue. On the other hand, clear and distinct knowledge makes the mind active and happy, and also free. Since freedom is determining ourselves, this is also an active state and it The realization of the concept, with genuine knowledge, is achieved. Therefore, the duty of man in terms of morality is to overcome his desires with thought. The true knowledge that makes man virtuous, strong, and free is God’s knowledge for Spinoza. Whoever reaches this knowledge will only connect with God and love Him, and consider the rest as temporary appearances. To love God with knowledge and reason, not with calculations or fears, but knowingly and rationally, is the pinnacle of virtue. Because it is a natural law for man to improve himself. In this kind of love for God, man has reached his full potential and thus the natural law within his essence has been fulfilled at its highest level.
Spinoza explains the reason for the establishment of the state with an approach similar to Hobbes’: When people live alone and scattered, they realize that their desire for “self-preservation and development,” their basic motives, are endangered. In order to ensure trust and well-being among themselves, they have established the state by coming to an agreement and making a contract. The state is not an artificial institution The value of a state is measured by whether it is in accordance with its founding purpose or not. The duty of the state is to regulate the rights and powers of individuals in a way that they do not disturb each other. This is best achieved in a democracy. Spinoza, who opposes Hobbes in this last thought, should not put people in a slave state by saying that the state is established to ensure peace; on the contrary, the state should create a free environment where individuals can develop both their physical and mental abilities, he says. Spinoza, who is one of those who fought for the idea of “tolerance” in his time, is one of the pioneers of modern liberalism.
Leibniz’s moral teaching is also rationalistic. According to him, the measure of what is right and what is wrong in terms of morality is the knowledge of right and wrong. The monad, whose designs are blurry and mixed, is in a passive state; it is a slave to instincts and is not free. The monad with clear and distinct knowledge is active, it is driven by its own will; in this state, this monad determines itself, therefore it is free. The aim of ethics is the maturity of the soul. makes.
The more enlightened a soul is with clear knowledge, the more it embraces the well-being of others with love. Because this enlightenment allows him to fully understand the intentions of other people; it teaches him the connection he is part of, according to the principle of “pre-established harmony”. The brighter this learning is, the less selfish the monad becomes; the more he desires the well-being of others, the more he grows in love for them.
Leibniz’s legal teaching is also part of this ethical understanding. Law is not just an institution that regulates the external relations of individuals. The roots of law are in ethics, in moral love. Because of this love, a person feels the happiness of others as their own happiness; because of this feeling, they do not infringe on others’ rights. Wisdom guides such love, it serves as a guide for actions.
In the philosophy of religion, Leibniz’s worldview reaches its most coherent expression. Leibniz also distinguishes between the “religion of reason” and “positive religion”. According to the rationalist Leibniz, reason is undoubtedly the highest and truest form of religion. The dogmas of positive religion, which are historically based, are random additions to the religion of reason. Therefore, practices such as various forms of worship in this religion are not obligatory. On the other hand, the beliefs of the religion of reason exist within the “truths of reason” and are obligatory; to think of their opposites leads to contradiction. According to Leibniz, the essence of religion is solely knowledge of and love for God.
Leibniz’s God is the highest in the order of monads, therefore the most knowledgeable, effective, powerful, and the whole universe’s “central monad.” In the face of such a understanding of God, one may ask, “How can this perfect God coexist with the disorder, decay, and guilt present in this universe, which is His creation? Why didn’t such a powerful God create a perfect world free from all of this?” Indeed, earlier, Bayle drew attention to this contradiction; in order to resolve this contradiction and justify God, Leibniz wrote a work which aimed to do so. In this way, one might think: Instead of looking at each individual monad that is lacking, if we look at the whole universe that is a reflection of God, we would see that this whole has power. The fact that monads are burdened with sin and guilt, that they suffer is due to their lack, their lack of competence. This also stems from the “metaphysical inadequacy” that is included in the truths of reason: Lack of competence is an element that necessarily exists in the concept of the universe. A world without finite beings cannot be imagined. Therefore, if God was to create a universe, it was necessary for it to consist of imperfect beings. Thus, God was not completely free when creating the universe, but was bound by the rules of his mind. However, God still created the best possible world. In short: God desired “good,” but it was a logical necessity for the world to be imperfect and faulty. Reason prevailed over will in God as well.
SOURCE