English Science and Literature club🤓✍️📖

293.

November 19, 2024 (14263)
Did Descartes think that French was superior to Latin? Did he see himself as “the first modern philosopher” whose way of thinking was supposed to replace ancient paradigms of Greek and Latin? In his Discourse on Method, he says that he has “discovered many truths more useful and important than anything he had hitherto learned or even hoped to learn.” He believes that these truths are “very important and generally unknown to other men.” He boasts that “the satisfaction he obtained from it filled his mind to such a degree that nothing else mattered to him.”
What is he talking about? What are these “certain laws… established in such a way in nature… that after sufficient reflection on them, we cannot doubt that they are strictly observed in everything that exists or occurs in the world”? Oh, yeah, he reinvented mathematics, which nobody knew about in his time, put together algebra and geometry, grounded them in physics and proclaimed himself a new naked emperor of all men of knowledge. He perfected the art of self-propaganda in French to the extent that an assumed entity behind the thinking process (which in psychopolitics we call “language”) no longer needed gods or nature and could stand on its own, deriving everything else – including gods and nature – from itself. Descartes’ response to the peripatetic axiom “nil in intellectu quod not fuerit prius in sensu” demonstrates how anybody driven by the intention to become the greatest thinker places one’s language in the center of psychopolitics, denying the hegemony of other thinkers and their narratives or reinterpreting them from an explicitly superior position. “Neither our imagination nor our senses could ever confirm the existence of anything, if our intellect did not play its part.” He says. Does “our intellect” in this case mean “Latin and French purple prose written by Rene Descartes”?

www.tgoop.com/clubscience/74

5 viewsVladimir Svetashev, edited  Nov 19, 2024 at 12:42

293.

November 19, 2024 (14263)
Did Descartes think that French was superior to Latin? Did he see himself as “the first modern philosopher” whose way of thinking was supposed to replace ancient paradigms of Greek and Latin? In his Discourse on Method, he says that he has “discovered many truths more useful and important than anything he had hitherto learned or even hoped to learn.” He believes that these truths are “very important and generally unknown to other men.” He boasts that “the satisfaction he obtained from it filled his mind to such a degree that nothing else mattered to him.”
What is he talking about? What are these “certain laws… established in such a way in nature… that after sufficient reflection on them, we cannot doubt that they are strictly observed in everything that exists or occurs in the world”? Oh, yeah, he reinvented mathematics, which nobody knew about in his time, put together algebra and geometry, grounded them in physics and proclaimed himself a new naked emperor of all men of knowledge. He perfected the art of self-propaganda in French to the extent that an assumed entity behind the thinking process (which in psychopolitics we call “language”) no longer needed gods or nature and could stand on its own, deriving everything else – including gods and nature – from itself. Descartes’ response to the peripatetic axiom “nil in intellectu quod not fuerit prius in sensu” demonstrates how anybody driven by the intention to become the greatest thinker places one’s language in the center of psychopolitics, denying the hegemony of other thinkers and their narratives or reinterpreting them from an explicitly superior position. “Neither our imagination nor our senses could ever confirm the existence of anything, if our intellect did not play its part.” He says. Does “our intellect” in this case mean “Latin and French purple prose written by Rene Descartes”?

BY English Science and Literature club🤓✍️📖