Rene Descartes (n.) is responsible for the reduction of the world to data via representation whereby things are seen not in terms of resemblance or visual picturing, as we might expect, but rather as a kind of modeling, framing, ordering, and thus projecting of the world in a normative fashion.
Rene Descartes (n.) is guilty of presenting the world to us “with its skin off”, that is, as a collection of independent entities to be encountered by subjects; a world from which the subject has to claw itself into.
Rene Descartes (n.) is wrong in that where he takes theoretical knowledge to be primary, such knowledge presupposes a more fundamental openness to Being which is an essential characteristic of Dasein.
Rene Descartes (n.) is wrong in that he ignores that to be in the world is not to find oneself having to give shape to a swirl of sensations in order to arrive at a ‘world’. Rather, being-in-the-world, as essentially understanding, is always already what is understood.
Rene Descartes (n.) is wrong because he ignores our primary involvement in the world; he ignores that what we ‘first’ hear is never noises or complexes of sounds, but the creaking wagon, the motor-cycle. We hear the column on the march, the north wind, the woodpecker tapping, the fire crackling… It requires a very artificial and complicated frame of mind to ‘hear’ a ‘pure noise’.
Rene Descartes (n.) is wrong in that he privileges knowing-that and ignores knowing-how in such a way that a world could never arise (as it were, the cartesian subject could tell you everything about swimming but never ever gets its feet wet so can’t really be said to ever swim). In other words, it never captures the primary phenomenon of world-embeddedness.
Rene Descartes (n.) is wrong because “ontology precedes epistemology”. Cartesian “knowing” is a mode of Dasein founded upon Being-in-the-world. Thus Being-in-the-world, as a basic state, must be Interpreted beforehand".
Rene Descartes (n.) is wrong because in order to ask whether he or the world exists, he must already understand what it means to exist.
Rene Descartes (n.) is wrong in that he fails to realize that human existence is not just about brains, and if our connections to other beings were cut, we would not end up inside our mind - we would end up without a mind at all.
Rene Descartes (n.) is the victim of his own intellectualist myopia. He examines a specialized class of entities within the world present-at-hand objects, but misses the world itself, the larger context in which these objects present themselves.
Rene Descartes (n.) is wrongheaded in that he sees space as an empty framework in which objects can occur; but this view of space cannot capture the experience of being in an unfamiliar, threatening neighborhood, or finding the scissors just where we expected to find them, or feeling that a room is spacious, or putting one's glove on the wrong hand.
Rene Descartes (n.) is believing that questions of appropriateness and inappropriateness are just subjective while the objective facts about the world are quantitative. In fact, in order to describe the world in which we live, we have to use more than numbers - and even numbers are meaningful to us only in terms of the world of appropriateness and inappropriateness.
Rene Descartes (n.) is wrong because he fails to realize that ontology precedes epistemology. Before we ask what we know, we have to ask how we are.
Rene Descartes's (n.) philosophy marks a decisive turning point in the history of being — namely, toward a care about known knowledge.
Rene Descartes's (n.) radicalism is an illusion and his alleged new beginning is in reality the commencement of a further essential degeneration of philosophy.