The people in A Brave New World were made on a conveyer belt of genetic tinkering. They were programmed from the embryo stage to carry out a specific duty. They “exist” as human machines. They are without original thought. How do these people know they exist? They do not know. It is obvious however, that they exist, is it not? They have lives, whether the lives have meaning to them or not. They partake in social activities; such as sex and sports. They have jobs. If reflecting upon Descartes’ cogito ergo sum, there is no proof that these people exist. They can not think for themselves. There is no “I think therefore I am” to them. All they know is, I eat, I sleep, I work, and I have sex. They do not ponder upon their meaning in the world. They simply do not ponder at all. Yet, these people obviously exist. Is it necessary to have the ability of thought for a thing to exist? I think this question points to a weakness in Descartes’ foundation.
Giving Descartes the benefit of the doubt, assume cogito ergo sum is. Now one must look at the audience to whom Descartes writes. I have come to the conclusion that his philosophy is rather bias. His next point is to prove if there is a God and if he is a deceiving God. I think Descartes’ Christian audience would have thrown his work away if he did not prove the existence of their God. He had to make the Christian God the real God proved by his philosophy. This is not fair. I believe Descartes to be writing with the intent of pleasing an audience rather than construction an objective philosophy free of religious chains. It causes me to ask whether or not Descartes was really interested in discovering actual truths, or writing merely for the sake of recognition as a great thinker. It is as if Descartes is cheapening his purpose by letting the audience persuade his writing, rather than his writing persuade the audience. Descartes completely rules out any scientific explanations of existence. His only goal is to prove God’s existence as the creator. What if there is no God? What if the universe existed simply because it did? What if it was not set in motion by any creator at all and just “was”? I think it is possible that Descartes may have asked these very same questions, but he was afraid to answer them. It would be only natural for him to have had some scientific questions that he asked himself. The fact remains that as long as there is a possibility of a jaded perspective due to fear of his audience, Descartes’ meditations are weakened.
In A Brave New World, God is Henry Ford, the inventor of the assembly line and founder of the Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford no more is God than Michael Jackson is my father. Yet, the people of Huxley’s society have been programmed to accept that fact. Is it not feasible that Descartes’ audience as well as he were programmed to believe in the Christian God? It does not seem so far fetched of an idea after considering Huxley’s society. The people merely do not know any better than to accept certain things. Why is this not possible for Descartes’ society? How would he know if he was programmed at all? If he did not have the capability to understand, then there is no way he could ever prove that God exists if he was not made to have that competence.
This correlates with Descartes’ method of knowing things. He claims to know things through a “clear and distinct” procedure. If his mind perceives something to be so clear and distinct that he can not doubt it, then the idea must be true. Descartes claims that intellect and understanding provides him with these truths. This rationalist epistemology is based in reason. Descartes presents the statement that a cause must have at least as much objective reality as the effect that it produces. Therefore, a human could not create a higher life form. Humans “know” they did not create themselves, resulting in the notion of “God.” Naturally, because ideas do not come out of nowhere, an idea can not be false. Because the idea of God is the highest of all ideas, and ideas are true, then God must exist. Since God exists, and there is no proof of him misleading us, then God is not a deceiver. Would a deceiving God reveal his deception to his creation? Would a deceiving God give his creation the capability to understand him on a level where his deception would be revealed? I think these questions are neglected by Descartes. Who says that all innate ideas are true? If the mind cannot create an idea, then how could the mind come to the conclusion that an idea could be true or false? What exactly is clear and indubitable now? Nothing seems to be absolutely clear and indubitable. It is like saying that I know the color red is “red.” It is red because I know it is, and it is not green, because green is “green.” Well, one does not know exactly what red is. How would one know?
The people in A Brave New World know absolutely nothing. They act according to their “innate” impulses. To them, their actions are natural because that is what their body and mind tells them to do. However, the reader knows that each person has been designed to have those innate urges. I am just not satisfied with accepting Descartes’ notion of knowing something because it is clear and indubitable. It may be indubitable according to the capabilities that one has been granted through creation. But, it all depends on who created Descartes, what the creator’s intentions were, and if there indeed was a creator at all. When looking in on a completely artificial society like Huxley’s, it causes one to think about his existence. Is it possible that I live in a world where I do not know what I think I know? Grant it, the world in which I perceive myself to live in is freer than that of A Brave New World. However, is what I am experiencing freedom at all? How would I know what “real life” is if I was not built to know? Simply put, I would not know.
I believe Descartes meant well when he set out to write his meditations. However, generally speaking, Descartes did not make a strong enough argument to persuade me to accept his theories as true. I found little validity in his beliefs due to the fact that it was harder for me to agree with his points than it was to disagree. In reality, Descartes may be right on target with his meditations. I may be too closed minded of an individual to accept the truth. Yet there are too many factors that cause me to play devil’s advocate against the theories of Descartes. A weak starting point caused me to be skeptical of his total argument. The possibility of Descartes being overly influenced by his audience causes me to look deeper into his words and intentions. And, an overly rationalist point of view turns me off to the possible truth of Descartes’ writings. When compared with those traits of society in Aldous Huxley’s, A Brave New World, Descartes’ ideas lose a particular sense of weight. The fact the Huxley’s novel presents to the reader with a society that is not unrealistically far fetched, hinders Descartes’ points even more. The world as I know it may be nothing like my perception. Maybe humans, including myself, look too hard for the deeper meaning of life instead of enjoying the perception we have. The fact remains that tomorrow, I will go out into the world with an open mind, yet clinging to the fact that I just do not know.