Final thoughts on Bacon and a first impression of Descartes

This course’s progression from Francis Bacon to Rene Descartes has been appropriate because of nature of their stylistic differences. Unlike Bacon, Descartes’ philosophical works are aimed for a scholarly audience as well as the general public. Despite this, Descartes maintains depth in his colloquial style. The “history or fable” approach he utilizes supplies his readers with provocative insights. In comparison, Bacon executes prolepsis effectively, but I find Descartes holistically more persuasive due to clarity. Bacon provides to be a difficult “guide” to follow through many of his ambiguous aphorisms. For instance, the reference to “Magic” as “the practical division of metaphysics” found in aphorism 9 of book two is an insufficient explanation. I would be much more satisfied with Bacon if he would expand on these seemingly arbitrary claims. Descartes’ primary contribution to my scholarship thus far is his ability to resolve the many questions I raised after reading Bacon. Descartes’ first principal of “I think therefore I am” in section four is a more substantial foundation than Bacon’s method of self-contradictory deduction which must assume each category of Form exists to evaluate it. I speculate that Descartes’ logic will continue to have more structure as class advances.