Descartes & Pinker

When we initially read Steve Pinker for class, I was struck by his use and dismissal of the idea that he traces back to Descartes. The notion of “the ghost in the machine,” which Pinker informs us that “the ghost in the machine has been subject to the most withering threats from modern science” (4). I thought this was interesting because Cartesianism has defined the notion of the mind / body split and has also been influential in the bedrock values of modern science (like the idea that we can actually know everything). Still, Cartesian values are present in the work of Pinker in precisely such ways as the notion that “we can know everything.”

Pinker is a particularly interesting example here because there is an example of mind / body dualism that is studying physical properties of human brains (which is certainly part of a contemporary understanding of the mind) in a way that seeks to undermine what he writes about as a view of human nature (the ghost in the machine). This precisely illustrates part of the conundrum with Pinker's writing in that he invokes a very specific part of Descartes' arguments, which paradoxically refused to abandon the concept of God, in order to argue that that particular worldview is invalid. He avoids, however, the parts of Descartes philosophy that have contributed to his own field—the idea that the mind can be separated from the body, that we can have a “pure” observational knowledge, etc.

Part of what my group had a discussion about when we discussed Pinker was whether the shift that Pinker (and work like his) makes, makes any difference from a functional level. Pinker looks to science of the brain and writes things like, “...all of our experiences, thoughts, feelings, yearnings, and emotions consist of physiological activity in the tissues of the brain” (4). Instead of using the existence of God or the idea of a soul, Pinker relies on studies of the brain as an ultimate explanation for what constitutes human nature. I don't think that this shift accomplishes much because it still holds the potential for essentialism (I am the way I am) and it still posits the locus of behavioral control outside the reach of human control. Furthermore, the curious part of it is that even though Pinker is trying to refute part of Descartes philosophy, he ultimately embraces it because they are both “knowers” who are purportedly able to rationalize and explain the way we live and experience our lives.