If I take anything from this course, it will at least be that Cartesianism is the biggest problem society is unaware of. The very idea of understanding it as a problem is difficult; how can you aspire towards something you are unaware of. I know there are things that do not compute with my mentality. Faith, in a spiritual sense, is something I do not understand. I understand faith; I place mine in people and things all of the time, and I equate faith to be some kind of deep trust. But faith in a higher power, or even belief, is something I do not understand or desire. That being said, the Cartesian problem seems to be that we aren't even aware of some of our mental assumptions of the world.
I agreed with Pinker when we first read his piece, but his belief that "Its all in your genes" is very Cartesian in that it picks one side of a spectrum and stays there. There is no gray in Cartesian dualism, it must be black or white, nature or nurture. Fausto-Sterling's work refutes Descartes and Pinker in two important ways: 1. that very few things are black or white, even gender, and 2. the mind and body are absolutely not seperate. Descartes's meditations were reasonable in an age without advanced genetics, physics, and chemistry, and very useful politically and theologically, but they are outdated. Fausto-Sterling calls for a new viewpoint that is all-inclusive of science and culture to explain the way bodies work, something that plays out better in a practical sense. Just like the Mobius Strip in her book (the little ants running around the coil), we see that mind and body are intertwined with no clear boundaries, and we can also see the potential to conduct science in this fashion so it is considerate of culture and politics. While the pure scientific exploration of Descartes may have provided valuable information, and can continue to do so, it should only be used to lay the groundwork for science that assumes the purest of conditions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A novel idea, but I must ask, what are the ramifications? Sure, 5 genders may be liberating for those who don't fit in the ones we've got now, but what happens when we have five genders? We can already see some consequences (not necessarily bad, but consequences none the less) from Womans' Rights. Other than lots more horrible cooking by guys, or less unified families, because there is no constant mother figure in the house, or more bad drivers on the road... (sorry, I had to. I just led myself into that one), or less wars even if you wanna try to tie that knot. Or what if we find out at some point in the future, presumably after the 5 gender switch has occurred, that inter-sexed people are really a genetic defect during pregnancy. We fight cancer and it is nearly the same thing, an uncorrected defect when genes are duplicated or used for protein construction. So say we then try to correct the mistake, but these other gendered people decide they don't want to be "normal" by the then standard definitions of gender, and they choose to act, lets say, as the deaf family we talked about acted, choosing to ensure they had a deaf child. That in and of itself could cause war, or genocide for that matter.
ReplyDeleteSo, summing up, the world may not be black and white, but the world is as we see it. And, if we want to see in black and white, maybe because it is for the better, maybe not, then the world will be black and white.
I don't agree with Bruce much here... really at all. And I'm not sure if Brandon and I are eye to eye. Looking at Bruce's summation of a black and white world because we want to see it that way brings up a couple of thoughts for me. the first is pure fancy: insanity. If we're nuts how does our perception of reality really change? Descartes says it doesn't matter since the insane are souless, mindless. But if that which is real/unreal, sane/insane is based on a collective recognition of said thing being true than isn't it possible that all on humanity is insane (take a look around - how much nutty stuff are we witness to every day) and the insane/"unsane" are the only ones with a grasp on what is truly real... wouldn't that be amazing if it were the case? A totally different point of view unburdened by the conceptualizations of the masses - awesome. The second thought is how unsettling the notion of "we see what we want to see". In Cartesian terms this makes sense - the world is filled with deception and our mind should not trust the sense of our wicked body, ergo, we rationalize internally ( although I think Descartes warned against the non-proficient attempting to do so) and trust the only good thing about ourselves - our sane, rational mind. Again, I find the notion of insanity very inviting.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your interesting post Brandon. Things to keep in mind: what makes Descartes so unique is that the very system he developed--one that attributes God to our understanding of truth--is one that allows for reason to actually undercut belief. We can be Cartesians and not believe in God. Reason and the discovery of truth are not necessarily contingent upon a belief in God, and we can look to Pinker as an emphatic example. So while his theories of the mind as separate from the body may be outdated, his theories on reason and truth are dynamic and adaptable and therefore still take precedence to this day--often times, without us knowing it.
ReplyDeleteinsanity is very inviting...
ReplyDeleteand it was just a point, I don't really think everyone is insane, but how could I know if everyone were anyway
here's a good quote that sort-of gets at my point, and everyone else's in a sense: "History is written by the victor... history is filled with liars. He he wins and we don't, his truth become reality." The last part makes more sense in context. It is said by a fictional man who fought for good, but has been labeled a terrorist to better the other man's "history"
How are we to really know if our history is the history?
Deciding that our 'truths' are constructed (by fallible humans with blindnesses and biases') doesn't mean that anything goes. It just cautions us to be less certain about our certainties. This is Latour's final point: a more 'realistic realism' looks at all the aspects of the business of fact-making. F-S is a 'Cartesian' in that she believes in reason, method and arguments by data (she's a biologist, after all). But she doesn't believe in the TWO TRUE SEXES view of things.
ReplyDelete