This paper examines the philosophical positions of René Descartes and Susan Langer on the role of rhetoric and language in acquiring and communicating knowledge. Despite their shared skepticism toward rhetoric as a distraction from truth, both philosophers recognize that symbolic communication—whether linguistic, visual, or mathematical—is inevitable and essential to human understanding. The paper traces their parallel critiques of language's representational limitations while exploring how they diverge on the relationship between sensory perception, symbol systems, and the pursuit of direct knowledge. Through a hypothetical dialogue between the two thinkers, the paper demonstrates that all forms of symbolic representation, including mathematics itself, remain imperfect vessels for capturing reality.
For René Descartes, rhetoric is useless in the face of direct knowledge. Mathematics and the scientific method are sufficient means of acquiring knowledge. Rhetoric should not substitute for clear communication of ideas or philosophical concepts. In Discursive and Presentational Forms, Susan Langer also criticizes the use of rhetoric as a distraction from the truth. Truth can and should be immediately garnered. Therefore, both Descartes and Langer agree that language—such as that used in rhetorical arguments—is unnecessary yet unavoidable.
Language is "our most faithful and indispensable picture of human experience," notes Langer (80). The problem with language is that it merely represents ideas, and thus can distort facts. As Langer points out, the symbols of language such as words "are apt to be mistaken" for what those symbols represent. Descartes also noted that ideas should be presented immediately and as clearly as possible with as few intermediary devices as possible.
Rhetoric obviously plays a role in the communication of ideas, as both Langer and Descartes rely on words and language to convey their central philosophies of rhetoric. For Descartes, "rhetoric was relegated to the simple task of communicating principles that are discovered by logic and experimentation" ("Rene Descartes"). When rhetoric is judiciously applied and when it is presented with minimal flourishes, then the underlying logic can be ascertained directly. If Langer and Descartes were discussing rhetoric during a painting class, both philosophers would therefore agree that pictures and other visual images can be more accurate representations of reality than words.
At the same time, pictures are also symbols. As Langer states, "entities too much like themselves" can also lead to misrepresentation and misunderstanding (81). Structures and symbols "cannot include as part of a symbol something that should properly be part of the meaning" (Langer 81). Descartes might, however, point out that it does not matter which forms or symbols are used so long as direct knowledge is acquired. Furthermore, it would be impossible to completely separate the artist from the form or even the viewer from the form. Mathematics is a purer means of representing reality than painting or language.
Both Descartes and Langer would surrender to the inevitability of symbolic communication. Even mathematics involves the use of symbols. Langer points out that thought "begins and ends with language; without the elements, at least, of scientific grammar, conception must be impossible" (88). As they recognize familiar structures and forms as well as colors in their works of art, Langer and Descartes would also discover that all symbols—elements of language or not—have a certain type of structure. What makes language meaningful is its structure, its linearity, and its discursiveness. Language does at least attempt to be logical and thus is a relevant albeit imperfect method of acquiring knowledge.
You’re 77% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.