Spoon or Fork?

My friend and I once had a riveting discussion about whether mashed potatoes should be eaten with a fork or a spoon. She firmly believes that mashed potatoes should be eaten with a spoon because reason suggests that soft foods fall through the cracks of a fork. I am convinced that mashed potatoes should rightfully be eaten with a fork because I have complete faith that the solidity of the potatoes will maintain itself on top of the fork. My friend and I have yet to resolve this conflict; we just settled on the conclusion that as long as the potatoes can be consumed, our differences of opinion remain irrelevant. Similar to this argument, the dual philosophers and mathematicians Blaise Pascal and Renè Descartes share a difference of opinion about certain elements of the world. Even though both Pascal’s Human Happiness and Descartes’ Discourse on the Method ultimately land on the same conclusions, their thought processes widely differ.

        In order to understand why Pascal’s and Descartes’ outlooks conflict with one another, we need to first understand how each of their personalities shape their thinking. Pascal’s approach to understanding humans demonstrates itself to be slightly more pessimistic than Descartes’ method. Pascal states that even though man proves to be “nobler than his slayer,” he still remains the “weakest in nature” similar to a “thinking reed” (21, 54). Pascal seems to be saying that just like a reed, humans can be swayed by external circumstances and remain subject to chance. Pascal’s way of thinking directly contrasts with Descartes’ idea that man proves himself superior by being able to discern the truth and being “so secure and certain” in truth “that it could not be shaken by any of the most extravagant suppositions” (28). Descartes believes in the infallible nature of man. Unlike Pascal, Descartes remains convinced that humans prevail over external circumstances and can make rational decisions all on their own.

        Pascal’s and Descartes’ opinions about the relationship of the mind and body also directly contradict each other. Pascal firmly supposes that “The way in which minds are attached to bodies is beyond man’s understanding, and yet this is what man is …” (54). When Pascal states that “yet this is what man is,” he indicates that even though man cannot perceive of the intertwinement of mind and body, mind and body still exist together within man. Descartes takes the opposite approach by positing that the mind “… is not sufficient to be lodged in the human body like a pilot in his ship, except perhaps to move its members …” (48). Descartes not only believes that the mind exists separate from the body, but he asserts that the mind would not even function properly if it was present in the body. Even though Pascal and Descartes have opposing viewpoints about the mind and body, they both still come to the conclusion that whatever the relationship, each entity must fulfill its purpose in man.

        Pascal’s and Descartes’ primary disagreement hinges on the emphasis of human senses versus the emphasis of human reason. Pascal remains a staunch supporter for the power of human senses. He theorizes, “Imagination. It is the dominant faculty in man, master of error and falsehood …” (3). Pascal rejects the popularly preached doctrine that reason holds the position as man’s governing force and suggests that man’s sense of imagination dictates his actions. Pascal rationalizes this theory by stating, “Reason may object in vain, it cannot fix the price of things” (4). Pascal’s statement gives imagination the power to set the worth of anything man encounters, robbing reason of man’s leading faculty. In a discordant manner, Descartes asserts, “ … because our senses sometimes deceive us, I decided to suppose that nothing was such as they led us to imagine it to be” (28). Descartes’ supposition seems to be a full-frontal assault on Pascal’s ideology. Descartes believes that the senses, such as those related to imagination, prove themselves overly fickle, so they do not offer a foundation solid enough for man to rely on when perceiving the world. Instead, Descartes places confidence in reason’s ability to discern truth from falsehood through doubt.

Pascal’s emphasis on human senses and Descartes’ emphasis on human reason lead them to have conflicting views as it relates to theology. Pascal ventures to prove the existence of God through faith rather than reason. Concerning the question of God’s existence, he affirms, “Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong” (66). Instead he believes, “We are therefore incapable of knowing either what he is or whether he is. That being so, who would dare to attempt an answer to the question?” (65). Pascal’s basis for believing in God roots itself in man’s incapacity to know through reasoning whether God exists, alternatively stressing faith that God exists without innate knowledge. Descartes attests that man is able to discern whether God exists because “… God has given each of us an inner light to distinguish the true from the false …” (24). In this way, Descartes concludes that we can reason that God exists by following the logic that humans are not wholly perfect, so we must derive from a “truly more perfect” being (30). Pascal and Descartes may have taken different routes, but they both arrive at the conclusion of God’s existence.

It would certainly be accurate to say that Pascal and Descartes have incompatible ideologies. Nevertheless, as science would have it, polar opposites attract and almost always arrive at the same point. I would like to think that Pascal and Descartes would make the best of friends, always arguing about which route to take, but making it there in the end. Just like my friend and me, we settled with the fact that as long as the mashed potatoes can be eaten, the question of spoon or fork does not really matter. Though we agreed to disagree, I will always voice my support for the fork.