Descartes thought that learning for yourself would be better then learning from someone else, since people tend to have emotional influences. It is probably true that learning from the source when studying human behavior is going to be more efficient than learning from someone’s interpretation of the source if you use good judgment yourself. In the case of emotional observations (or observing human behavior) this is especially obvious because the people who preach have a tendency to pretend they know more than they actually do, or try to appear to be better than they are. In this emotional prejudice the truth can be altered from reality, or the source. As Descartes said, “Those who set about giving precepts must esteem themselves more skilful than those to whom they advance them” (pg 7). In other words, someone might alter the truth solely so they could come up with something to say, while the real truth might not be capable of being expressed so easily, it can only be observed. Some things in life are too complicated to express, but however there are going to be people who believe they can express those things, even though they cannot accurately do so. Even knowing your own understanding of the truth might not be completely certain, as you might distort reality or truth so it can be easier to understand, yet possibly not understood at the same time. However, someone’s version of the truth might help you to think about the things you have observed and make you better able to interpret reality for yourself – you just should remember that what they say might be wrong and that you need to rely on your own observations and empirical evidence to make certain of its truth. That shows how even something you label false might have elements of truth.

It is hard to assess the truth of many emotional circumstances, however, because emotions are not easily measured. For instance, if you are going to assess how much one person likes someone else, you cannot say, “this person likes that person with 60% passion”. You could take various factors of the relationship and analyze them, however for each one of those factors you are going to have an emotional (possibly wrong) opinion as to how much each of those factors weigh in. Dealing with emotional intelligence is basically dealing with an endless number of unknowns, only leading to more unknowns. The only thing to do would be to keep exploring unknowns until you find some minor degree of things you know to a reasonable degree are true. In that manner anyone’s idea of what is real could be very uncertain, and that is why it is best to explore reality for yourself. Everyone obviously takes information from reality for themselves, and they are living in the real world just like everyone else, however there can be degrees of separation from an actual experience. A clear example of that would be that you could possibly learn more about the truth better from someone directly then indirectly.

Another question entirely is - are the emotions which are based off of your opinions even real, since they are based off of opinions? For instance, when you judge how cool or interesting something is, that judgment is going to influence how much enjoyment you get from that thing, since your enjoyment of it comes from both how cool it actually is, and how cool you think it is. For instance, if you think that a person is not interesting, you are going to not be as interested in them and therefore not feel good things from them like you would from a person you are interested in. The questions are, how much does your opinion of them differ from the truth, and how much does your opinion of them influence how you feel about them? Those questions can be applied to anything in life. If you think something is interesting, you are going to be more interested in it. It is almost as if your opinions trigger and direct your emotions. If you think something is more valuable then you might be better able to recognize value that is actually there.

How much does your perception of what is going on impact how what you feel is going on? Your perception is going to determine what it is that you feel, that is, your conscious and unconscious perception of what is going on is. If you have a strong false conscious perception of what is going on you are going to feel differently, or think different things from the reality. Your unconscious mind, however, probably isn’t going to have a false perception of what is going on by itself since your unconscious mind is your natural mind and many other factors could be being influenced there that trigger real emotions which you don’t have conscious control over. For instance, a situation may be very complicated, so your conscious perception can only be so complicated because you can only have so advanced a perception of the situation that you are aware of, so thankfully you can only alter reality so much. The rest of how you feel is going to be determined by lots of complicated unconscious factors, or every factor that is a factor, technically so because that is all going to be processed at least unconsciously. That is also why learning from the source is going to be better than someone’s interpretation of it, because the source is going to be much more complicated than a simple verbal explanation. So the statement, “nothing is real, only your perception of it is” is not true because your perception is going to be limited by how much you are capable of consciously perceiving.

That previous quote from Descartes also explains another passage he used:

For it seemed to me that I might meet with much more truth in the reasonings that each man makes on the matters that specially concern him, and the issue of which would very soon punish him if he made a wrong judgment, than in the case of those made by a man of letters in his study touching speculations that lead to no result, and that bring about no other consequences to himself excepting that he will be all the more vain the more they are removed from common sense, since in this case proves to him to have employed so much more ingenuity and skill trying to make them seem probable. (pg 10 the European philosophers)

That passage shows well how everything that someone thinks is going to be true to a certain degree. It is going to be absorbed a certain amount; however your understanding of how much it is absorbed is also going to vary by degree, not necessarily related to the reality. There are also going to be different types of truths, and different ways in which knowledge can be absorbed. It can be understood emotionally. It can be understood emotionally in different ways and in each different way, it could affect a different other sort of knowledge already in your mind. For instance, one piece of knowledge could change your viewpoint on another piece of knowledge or opinion in your mind. This shows how all knowledge is really just opinion, or belief, since it can vary so much based off of new material, or, since we just defined knowledge as belief, new beliefs. By stating “knowledge” or “belief” here, you should understand that both are clearly emotional intelligence. As an example you could use the idea of how much you enjoy going to playgrounds and parks. The idea of that and what you understand about it could be influenced by your understanding of how much you like going to other events. A whole set of experiences could be used and that could be one way your mind compares or processes things. One certain experience, or a few ideas however might be much more significant and relevant to other ideas then all the ideas you have in your mind, however. So it is not as if everything is infinitely complicated, with everything tying into everything else in some infinitely complicated way.

The previous passage is in turn explained by the quote:

More especially did I reflect in each matter that came before me as to anything that could make it subject to suspicion of doubt, and give occasion for mistake, and I rooted out of my mind all the errors that might have formerly crept in. Not that indeed I imitated the skeptics, who only doubt for the sake of doubting, and pretend to by always uncertain; for, on the contrary, my design was only to provide myself with good ground for assurance, and to reject the quicksand and mud in order to find the rock or clay.” (pg 22 the European philosophers)

Using experiences in life, or anything that is complicated beyond a practical reality is going to involve emotional intelligence. When I talked about how a lot of reality is going to be knowledge of belief I was referring to understanding things that can be manipulated in your mind as to your viewpoint, versus thinking about things that don’t have an emotional impact on you and is more like you are just manipulating a certain real reality in different numbers or amounts (like doing math) but not your personal viewpoint. When your viewpoint for a specific thing, or even your overall viewpoint is being manipulated by yourself you are using emotional intelligence. That manipulation might occur when you are thinking about anything that can have various different perspectives, which could be a lot of things. In fact, even something mathematical is going to have different perspectives, for instance, if you get the wrong answer you have a wrong perspective of what you think is the truth. That shows how emotions are going to play a role in even simple things in life, like calculating how many objects there are in a room, or doing other mathematical like calculations. They play a role because for each different perspective you have on the answer, there is going to be a different emotional outlook. For instance, you might be happy if there are a large number of objects in a room, but sad if there are very few. A lot of life is going to consist of observations and behaviors that can be described simply. In that way it is easy to see how a lot of life can be “true”, because when you describe what happens in life in a simple way you also see a certain emotional truth, which would seem to be a more significant aspect of how reality functions.

However, since emotional intelligence is not completely concrete, it can be subject to skeptics, or however as Descartes puts it you should try “to reject the quicksand and mud in order to find the rock or clay”. It is also shown here that since emotional intelligence consists of calculating real things which exist in certain numbers, and can be manipulated in a mathematical like way, that emotional intelligence and non-emotional intelligence - where you manipulate real things in certain numbers – are the same. So you can do math for emotional things and you would be using your emotional intelligence, or you could manipulate non emotional things in your mind (say just calculating different probabilities of something simple) and it wouldn’t be using your emotional intelligence as much. Emotional intelligence and non-emotional intelligence are similar in nature because you are manipulating things in both instances; one just affects you to a greater degree.

There is another question Descartes asked that relates to the previous quote of those, and it is basically “how do I know that anything is even real”? He states the following showing how someone could doubt the existence of everything:

Accordingly I shall now suppose, not that a true God, who as such must be supremely good and the fountain of truth, but that some malignant genius exceedingly powerful and cunning has devoted all his powers in the deceiving of me; I shall suppose that the sky, the earth, colors, shapes, sounds and all external things are illusions and impostures of which this evil genius has availed himself for the abuse of my credulity…” (pg 32 the European philosophers)

Asking that question is like asking how certain and true anything is, only it is suggesting that there could be a large degree of uncertainly present. It also might mean that the world is either false and simply not there at all. If the latter two things can be identified then the degree of uncertainty involved will also be somewhat resolved.

Saying that the world is false is implying that it is generating emotions in you that are not accurate. The ultimate objective of anything real is to generate emotion, so if something is real but “false” then it must be generating emotions that it shouldn’t be generating. It would still have to be real, however, since it is generating emotions (unless you are imagining it, but then in that case what your imagination is creating can be considered real, and that thing is itself based off of something else that was real – or had some real characteristics – at one point). So if everything was false someone wouldn’t have any basis to know what truth is at all. If something generates an emotion, then that emotion is real. Your mind might have an emotional bias, however, and be distorting that emotion. For instance, if you have a prejudice against someone they are going to cause you to feel things about them which are false. So how does anyone know that anything they feel is unbiased? The physical world must be real because we can be certain that something physical is there, however it could be shaped in a way that deceives our emotions. A way to figure out how true something is is to take that thing and compare it in all ways it presents itself in various situations, that way you can take data from where you see it more true in one instance and apply that to see how it might be false in another.

Saying that the world is not there entirely is like saying that the world is false, only it suggests that instead of generating a false or biased feeling, it is not generating any feeling at all. If a feeling is being generated, something must be there, but you might not know how deceiving that thing is. So ultimately it is best to know a combination of all three things, or the certainty of how true and false something is (and those things related to everything else).

Another question altogether is not whether the world exists, but if the person contemplating if the world exists, exists. Descartes seemed to believe that since he was capable of thought, he existed:

I am, I exist. This is certain. How often? As often as I think. For it might indeed be that if I entirely ceased to think, I should thereupon altogether cease to exist. I am not at present admitting anything which is not necessarily true; and, accurately speaking, I am therefore [taking myself to be] only a thinking thing, that is to say, a mind, an understanding or reason-terms the significance of which has hitherto been unknown to me. I am, then a real thing, and really existent. What thing? I have said it, a thinking thing. (pg 35 the European philosophers)

He says he is “a mind, an understanding or reason” which means that all his thoughts together form this understanding and complete mind. He is not just one understanding, people understand lots of things, but all of them would form who he is. Maybe the understanding of who he is occurs in an instant, and in this instant he is only one understanding, reason or mind. He can spend a lot of time contemplating his existence, or glimpse it in an instant. However, this understanding of who he is he carries with him all of the time, only more in the background then when he is thinking about his existence. So it really is thought that makes him who he is, since he is thinking about himself all of the time, in addition to thinking about and in regular life.

Thought determines who someone is because your thoughts are controlled, and all your thoughts over your lifetime caused your emotional development, which causes you to be who you are. There are also feelings, but since someone cannot control their feelings their feelings aren’t a part of who they really are. Who you really are is someone that is what they want to be, and what they want to be is going to be something they can think about. If you are emotionally damaged you might act in a way you don’t want to, and be presenting yourself to be different from who you really are. That would only cause other people to view you as different from who you are, your thoughts are still intact and you are still who you really are inside (for the most part). Thoughts are controlled and directed; feelings mostly cannot be directed or controlled. Your consciousness is therefore going to be more determined by your thoughts, not your emotions. So it is easy to say that your thoughts understand and/or control who you are, but it is much harder to say that your emotions understand and/or control who you are.

That question, of who someone is, is so large and complicated that it brings up another question that maybe God Himself is deceiving us in this world, for this world (and understand who we are) is so complicated that maybe we are being deceived. Descartes also had his own ideas about the existence of God and his capability of deception:

I recognize it is impossible that He should ever deceive me, since in all fraud and deception there is some element of imperfection. The power of deception may indeed seem to be evidence of subtlety or power; yet unquestionably the will to deceive testifies to malice and feebleness, and accordingly cannot be found in God. (pg 54 the European philosophers)

If a human or a God created infinite pain in people, or was infinitely evil and deceptive, then this being would not be considered to be perfect because he or she would irritate everyone. The idea of a successful human is one that achieves personal fulfillment, and it is hard to imagine someone achieving a lot of satisfaction if they alienate everyone extremely. This doesn’t mean, however that if someone pleases everyone infinitely their life is going to be infinitely good as well. Also, since a perfect God would do everything perfectly, if He irritated people, He would do it perfectly, and that would mean irritating them infinitely, which doesn’t seem like a perfect thing to do. Although it isn’t conclusive as to whether or not pleasing other people infinitely is going to be self-beneficial, it could be considered a perfect thing to do since it is positively contributing to life. Even if someone is cruel to someone else, there is still a human connection that exists between them. This connection would become evident if the cruel person tried to be perfectly cruel, or cruel in such a way that the feelings of the other person became too evident, at which point the cruel person wouldn’t be capable of doing harm. For instance, a person couldn’t spend all day shooting people lined up, one after another, without it causing them distress. Since God is perfect, he would either do perfect harm or perfect good, but perfect harm isn’t possible because it would intensify negative feelings so much that they would become destructive to even the person doing the damage. Perfectly good feelings, however, don’t have to be intense - they could just be ordinary feelings and still be considered perfectly good. It is as if the true nature of evil is too vile to even exist. This philosophy is portrayed in a quote by Ralph Emerson - “To laugh often and much; To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; To appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; To leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded” The quote is a reflection of the ideas behind a good person and that this person is so good that any hint of cruelty wouldn’t be tolerated (especially perfect cruelty), and therefore perfect cruelty couldn’t exist. So when someone contemplates if they want to be cruel or good, when they realize they can only be so cruel so they also realize how they are good, and this sympathy can be conveyed in grand kind statements (like the Emerson quote).

Bibliography

Beardsley, M. C. (ED.) [1992 Modern library Edition Copyright 1960 Random House, Inc Copyright renewed 1988 by Random House, Inc.]. The European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche. New York, USA and Toronto, Canada.