You are on page 1of 6

An Analysis of Jonathan Ree’s Philosophical Tales excerpt on Descartes

Comedy

It would be necessary for me to justify choosing Jonathan Ree’s article

over Marjorie Perloff’s. First, Jonathan Ree’s article was more fluid and reader

friendly than Perloff’s. Second, Ree’s article provides a brief historical

background of the text along with the discussion of text, which does help

understand the philosopher and the circumstances by which his thoughts

emerged as compared to Perloff who was more poetic in her interpretation of

Wittgenstein . Also, Ree was focusing on Descartes rather than Descartes

readings, he was building Descartes and his thoughts through Cartesian texts

and the absence of it (as Descartes ambitiously promised before but it did not

bear fruit).

Ree’s Descartes Comedy was basically a little biographical probably

because of the books in which Descartes wrote which were a little fictional

autobiographical. Ree presented Descartes in a way which was indeed

legendary (by quoting Hegel calling Descartes an ancestor-myth) but still human,

a perfectionist human. Ree organized Descartes works and life into four

categories, each describing Descartes status or style in writing.

Ree pointed out in the beginning of the book that he was adapting the

attitude of irony and philosophical experience as his guide for his book which in

turn was why he had named it Descartes' Comedy. I believed that through

Descartes' successes he had not lived a full life and, as written in Ree, that he
had died in a land who does not understand his ideas. It is not funny but the twist

and turns of his life, Descartes choice to sell his fortune for a solitary life of

thinking of a new science had indeed aided the philosophical community and

made him the father of modern philosophy but had made his life difficult and sad

(being made fun of, being misunderstood)

The main points in Ree's article is that Descartes was a perfectionist

writer, although he had envisioned creating a new science (for the world to

revere him and to applaud his choice of leaving his life behind for a fresh start)

he was not in a hurry. He envisioned that when he was 24 and he had not

published an article until he was 40. He was being laughed at by the scientific

community for the vision he had and the years it took him to do a treatise.

Descartes had some defense to that since his previous style was not able

to accept changes and new thoughts he has generated thus he had to start all

over again. In this we note that Descartes had a "legalistic, stiff-necked,

impersonal" style in his mode of writing thus disabling him to change his ways as

he moves along. This has prompted him to change his style which will more

adopt his ever changing ideas and adopt his new ideas as well. He probably had

read Montaigne's essays which had an element of subjectivity and had

entertained changes (in a story-telling way) and the work had a little to do with

the authorial responsibility for criticisms since the fictional character will be most

likely not associated with the author. Add up the effect and the wide audience

that have liked Montaigne's work, Descartes had found a way in which he could

now write.
Descartes used narrative devices in which the narrator is obtrusive in

every paragraph, creating an "I" which is an idea of the past which the story in

based on, and an narrator "I" which had wisdom of afterthought (unlike

Montaigne's narrator which was an inconsistent narrator). In 1635, when he had

published Discourse, he had welcomed the reading and literate public into his

thoughts (by writing in French his fictional autobiography). Although his style was

similar to Montaigne's he wanted to distance himself and thus attacked the mode

of stories and fables which he rendered useless. Descartes also devised a

clearer mode of writing which was organizing the essays into chapter based on

categories unlike Montaigne's informal and jumbled work. And instead of being

his article of philosophy (like Montaignes' Essays) he wanted his article to be

incorporated into philosophy (Ambitious that he is).

Descartes' Discourse focused on a fictional Rene's beginnings and the

start of his thinking (and doubting), roaming and staying in Holland and his work

in the natural sciences. On the sixth chapter, Descartes breaks the wall and the

narrator became the protagonist. The autobiography revealed a little of

Descartes secrets likie what he can and cannot achieve in the sciences and his

eluding his "totally new science". But the autobiographical form provided what

only the author wanted to appear, appealing to the readers to judge him from the

way he looks at himself.

He published another work Meditations (in Latin to "avoid weaker

intellects" who had criticized his apparent anonymous work in Discourse) which

were a little more similar to Montaigne's essays and which style was more of a
diary than a formal autobiography. The diary had an effect of letting the reader

judge the author freely since the passing by thoughts will depict who the author

really is. Descartes had used the diary form as to evade again criticisms since

the diary is spontaneous ,more of feelings rather that thoughts which cannot be

criticized and be only on the interpretation of the reader.

The Meditations represent a fictional 6 day retreat (which Descartes had

attended under St. Ignatius) wherein he had dumped his thoughts and worries

and doubts on the paper so as to diminish his "devotion to his beliefs" (as similar

to the retreat to unburden their faults from their conscience in order for the lapses

to get lesser everyday). In Meditations, Descartes cleared the scientific basis

against the so called common sense. Descartes also wrote that "All the various

things we do make it impossible to avoid wandering into errors" as a response to

a clamor in the "new science". Meditations was denied by Descartes having been

his own thoughts. (He was always distancing himself to avoid criticism) but he

wanted the readers to take the gist of the book seriously.

Meditations and Discourse although different in approach were of the

similar hand. First, they represent only a part of Descartes ideas, may be a

former idea but guided by a wiser narrator (in Discourse). Second, as being

noticed is that the building up of tension in earlier chapters achieving a climax

effect to its readers in the summation which is the last chapter of the book. The

first chapters represent unstable truths and foundations which then lead to a

more plausible conclusion. Third, the two books only show what is not yet known

and what is known now, he tries to avoid being preachy and only concludes
morals and rectification of errors in the last chapter. Lastly, the books contained

an "irony of an anticipated retrospect". Possibly an edited past wherein his points

are cleverly designated. It was told that in Meditations, one day or one chapter

took him one year to create, it was probably hard infusing an element of fiction in

someone's past in order to prove a point which is free from "common sense". (I

think Descartes was really ambitious to want to start from tabula rasa to "create a

knowledge" for we are all but tainted and formed in a certain mould in order to

survive)

In the end, Descartes created a book of clarification of his ideas to his

critics who have well misunderstood him and read only the first chapters on his

books and not even reaching the last one which really contained his points. The

Treatise of Passions was neither analytic nor narrative it was appealling to

reader's literary skills.

As an afterthought, although Descartes was very ambitious about what he

would like to achieve in philosophy and wanting to reach the people creatively

(through his different style in writing), he really did achieve and is now a pillar of

Philosophy. His literary style endeared him to the readers and to critics as well,

for as he evaded them creatively and by doing so he was a pioneer (although he

patterned after Montaigne) in creatively expressing his thoughts in a more

affective 'feeling' way in an organized order (in contrast to Montaigne) as

opposed to philosophers who were very straightforward and analytic and wishing

to never bump into the "poetical confusion". Descartes welcome the artistic trend

and embraces his thoughts into it for it complimented his ever changing mind
style. I even believe that analytical philosophers even though they hate literature

most likely is using literature in terms of numbers so as to avoid it. Perhaps

numbers can also be considered literature then.

Reference:

Ree, Jonathan.(1987). Philosophical Tales. Routledge.

You might also like