I think, therefore...

From politics, to science and now to the nature of philosophy itself. To say that the transition from Machiavelli to Descartes is perhaps all the greater confusion itself in terms of thinking quite so quickly in terms of one change to another. However, as Descartes says himself, we are always thinking of the form even when we're sleeping. And, as Leibniz once said, free will is in itself illogical as we are inclined to many emotions. Anyway, much of this was disagreed by Spinoza than Russell himself, who rightly said that it is hard to think of compassion when people are motivated by revenge and forgiveness would be difficult to achieve "sincerely".Besides this, I believe I should focus on the figures individually before it leads to more confusion. Just thought a combination would be useful at the start, so I will try to be concise...

KEY WORDS

1. Rationalist: The belief of epistemology of people like Descartes and Plato (and possibly Locke and Hobbes, as politicians) the "I think, therefore I am" idea is accepted as a challenge for many philosophers to think of an idea without the necessary facts first. Therefore, people like Descartes are disregarded when trying to achieve the solution.
2. Empiricist: The other sector, like Aristotle, Bacon and even Russell himself, use the superficial entails to conceive ideas out of facts and evidence alone. Think of Spinoza when Russell says that "Facts have to discovered by observation, not by reasoning; when we successfully infer in the future..." (pp. 528). This is perhaps why Bacon is less criticised.

Descartes
The man behind Cartesian Doubt and belief that we are machines who sometimes perceive the world as it does not really exist in its true form. Besides the "I think..." theory, which to Descrtes is the most affirming aspect that humans do indeed have a physical existence, to which he said "...therefore I exist while I think, and only then. If I ceased to think, there would be no need of my existence." Besides this, Descartes asserted that the body consists of "two clocks", of which the soul is the vital spirit and the body itself. For example physical laws alone cause a limb to move. The mind is one thing and the body another. Ideas, like dreams, are foreign to us because of what we experience and therefore come from within. Russell, the empiricist, says this is unfounded.

Spinoza
The most "ethically supreme" philosopher and who said that the love towards God is the greatest intellect that a man can posses. Although wise in statements that "Only ignorance makes us think that we can alter the future..." and "no evil can befall a man except through external causes", Spinoza's ideas of forgiveness are as almost as nonsensical to think this as Hobbes's belief that man should never rebel against a despotic king because his share of political power has passed. All objects themselves, when associated with God, "will fully occupy the mind" and that his idea that the world itself is dominated by single spirit because God knows no evil and earth didn't have to be created if it need to unfortunately decimate Spinoza's ideas into something that no secular belief can accept anymore. More's he pity when Spinoza's "what will be, will be" may have comforted so many who face death and despair that everything should be seen as a whole rather than an individual incident.

Leibniz
Perhaps the most reputable and relevant philosopher of the three today, Leibniz's beliefs are similar to that of Descartes which mind and matter are completely separate matters. The spirit of "monads", as he referred them, had many contradictory factors. Where monads had hierarchical existence which say the dominant one is in the mind and has no rule of bodily functions, it is stated that in terms of a pre-existed harmony that 'windowless' (dynamics and perception) nomads do not affect each other. So how can they strike if they're regulated? B one big dream and, as we all know, our 'nomads' think alike anyway...Rubbish! This is perhaps Leibniz's biggest weakness, along with that a world is created by the "laws of logic" alone. What is most interesting is the question if the universe's creation as a cause by which God only knows alone (a.k.a the "First Cause" argument). One final point that is quite topical is the question of suffering and if evil must  exist for the purpose that if we want a drink of water, as Russell says, it is more satisfying if we long for it rather than handed on a silver platter (think Descartes and "water" and "sorrow" here). God created free will so that there could be evil in the world, in summary!

One Last Note...
I cannot leave this post without mentioning how utterly dire and banal The Matrix is. Keanu Reeves has to be one of THE most wooden and dopey actors I have seen in my entire life and that is saying something! Dialogue disasters and parody pickings, a fascinating concept was ruined by stupefying Hollywood producers and writers. I sat through two hours watching this tat and I will not get those hours back for watching a film which holds Plato on a pedestal! I feel ashamed as a former Film Studies student that I tortured myself with this...BAH! An unequivocal ZERO stars for this mess.