“...not to teach the method...but only to reveal [it]....I am presenting this work only as a history or, if you prefer, a fable...”
But if this is a fable, then what do we make of its conclusions? Is it that this ‘fable’ is meant to merely illustrate a sequence of reasoning that might be taken to support those conclusions? Or is it that, like all autobiography, it purports to tell the truth about its subject—its author—but that the reader should only take it a certain way, not as a lesson, but as a useful way to look at the world—worthy of imitation among ‘many others’? Or maybe it’s meant to establish authenticity: that its author traveled, and considered, and thought, and blah blah blah, and as such is warranted to weigh in on the intellectual matters at hand.
Posts
Timothy Chow on the NF consistency proof and Lean
22 hours ago
6 comments:
I think Decartes presents this more as a fable to validate his ideas through examples and experiences. People in general tend to identify with ideas and concepts if they can relate to it. Inside of that statement, that may have been his aim in order to have other people see what exactly he is getting at.
If Descartes is presenting this as a fable or history then is he leaving out information or making events to seem possible which are not? In paragraph 7 he says that fables "make one imagine many events to be possible which are not so at all". So maybe some of the events he describes aren't really as they seem.
I believe that this is his fable, his story. Something that is not real, but he uses many examples to show how he thinks, to get his point across to us. I also believe that he uses the word "fable" to cover himself up from the church, because he is being "disrespectful" to the church in a way that he is using his own mind and not going by what the church expects you to live by or think like.
It seems as if he is questioning history. He says that people exaggerate or alter history to make it more interesting so people will read about it. I agree with what Danielle said because by him saying this makes me question if he is trying to exaggerate his story a little.
When I read it I took it as a statement of credibility. Looking back at it now that I’ve finished it, I think it is also a sort of foreshadowing to his conclusions, as he seems to back up relativism. He is adamant about his conclusion for existence, but nothing else can be seen as conclusive for him, and as humans' are prone to mistakes, perhaps he thinks it will eventually be a study of all his mistakes rather than truths.
I agree with Isabella, that when she said that people make history more interesting than it really is. I personally believe that if people didn't stretch the truth a little bit, no one would even consider reading about the past.
It's kind of like what's going on in today's day and age. If it's not interesting, we don't give it a second chance.
Post a Comment