I understand Descartes’ journey to find the things that he, or maybe better said, we can know. I also strive not to speculate, but to stick to what we can know, such as Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.” And it is obvious that we think, regardless of what we believe.   

I thought about this because of what even he, in a different way, will have noticed. I like YouTube, but I don’t care too much for the model or the company that owns it. However, there are a lot of interesting videos to find.  There is, of course, this famous algorithm that serves you what might be interesting for you. This makes it difficult to be critical of what you find on YouTube because we all have a different experience, no feed is the same.  But as long as you know that there is an algorithm and how it roughly works, you can make use of it to find interesting stuff and what hangs around the borders of what you find interesting.

I enjoy watching documentaries, interviews, and video essays about philosophy, psychology, society, and related topics. But most of what I watch is from creators who are sceptical, and they tend to steer away from speculation. Last week, I watched some videos about consciousness, and in some of them, they interviewed individuals who seemed to be experts in a specific subject and stuck to that topic throughout the video.  If I find someone interesting, I will conduct some research to gain an impression of their stance on other subjects. Sometimes, they stray from the norm and come up with the most fantastic ideas on how all of this, in this case, consciousness, works when you watch them being interviewed or portrayed by creators who have a more specific agenda and are less critical. It is, of course, no crime to speculate, but when I then see them in these pseudo-scientific videos about third dimensions and alternate states, I will reach for the ignore button.

These uncritical thinkers are no Descartes, so that’s why I ignore them. Even though Descartes will also venture into areas where he cannot prove that what he says is true, he still has a great mind. With thinkers from his time, it is also harder to blame them for not being too outspoken because blasphemy could literally cost you your head, and they did not have the luxury of all the knowledge we now have about our physical bodies. Descartes is, of course, known for his dualism, which posits that the physical body somehow interacts with the spiritual world, specifically the soul. Scientists have examined the brain and other parts of the body where this connection is formed, but most serious thinkers recognize that there is no soul and such a connection. One of the clues is damage to parts of the brain, which then affects how we think (think also of alcohol, caffeine, and drugs). If there is a soul separated from our physical body, how can this soul then be affected? Damage to the brain is something that can be measured, and its effects are visible in how someone behaves. In this, you also need to theorize on why this is, but there are at least effects to be measured that can give some proof. Theorizing what happens with the soul and how that connects with the world is much harder to ground in reality, a reality we can all understand, and not just the imaginative mind of a few individuals.