Diderot's Conversation With D Alembert

Diderot's Persuasion of d'Alembert

In Diderot's “Conversation with d'Alembert”, Diderot's purpose is to convince d’Alembert that god is not necessary. This was necessary based on following conversation Diderot had with d'Alembert who confesses to difficulty accepting that god is not needed to explain life:
Being who exists somewhere and yet corresponds to no point in space, a Being who, lacking extension, yet occupies space; who is present in his entirety in every part of that space, who is essentially different from matter and yet is one with matter, who follows its motion, and moves it, without himself being in motion, who acts on matter and yet is subject to all its vicissitudes, a Being about whom I can form no idea; a Being of so contradictory
a nature…(Diderot, 1) Diderot's purpose was to show d'Alembert that such an entity does not exist and to convince d'Alembert to change his thinking regarding God; basically to become an atheist. In this pursuit, Diderot draws upon the intellect and logic of d'Alembert in order to get him to affirm Diderot’s scientific as well as his atheistic views.
Diderot rejects that everything must have a purpose.
He begins creatively by utilizing Falconet's statue; stating that it has “inactive sensitivities” and there isn’t much difference between a man and a statue; “Flesh can be made from marble, and marble from flesh.” (Diderot, ) By inactive sensitivities, Diderot means that the statue has the potential for the same sensitivities (feelings) man has but that they have simply not been activated. Using what d'Alembert already professes to know, Diderot then extends this logic further. By discussing how one removes active sensitivities from food during the process of eating, Diderot explains his concept of
transference:
. . . the same way that what you call animate force is not the same as inanimate force. . . . transference of a body from one place to another is not itself motion, it is the consequence of motion. . . exists equally in the body displaced and in the body that remains stationary. . . . Take away the obstacle that prevents the displacement of a stationary body, and it will be transferred. (Diderot, ) Further, he draws on the intellectual traditions of his predecessors including epicurean philosophers:
Quote and add others?

When d'Alembert then asks what motion and sensation have to do with one another, before going on to ask if Diderot “distinguishes between an active and an inactive sensitiveness, as between animate and inanimate force?” Diderot, having cleverly cajoled d'Alembert to where he wanted states, “Precisely; just as you say.” (Diderot, 4) Using the strategy of getting d'Alembert to think it was his idea. When d'Alembert statee “. . . the statue merely has inactive sensitiveness; and man, animals, perhaps even plants, are endowed with active sensitiveness.” (Diderot, 4) Diderot cleverly makes that connection appear obvious and states it isn’t the only one causing d'Alembert to obediently fall into place.
At this point, Diderot utilizes humiliation in order to encourage D’Alembert to agree, as shown when he responds to d'Alembert confusion, with the following line. “Because you don't want to see it. It is just as common a phenomenon.” (Diderot, 4) Diderot goes on to explain that when one eats, “obstacles that prevented the food from possessing active sensitiveness” become assimilated within one’s flesh and becoming animal. He explains, “. . . you give it the faculty of sensation; and, what you do to this foodstuff, I can do, when I please, to marble.” (Diderot, 4) The conversation continues as Diderot explains how he can turn marble into food by pulverizing it and spreading it into the soil where vegetables leech nutrients from. Eventually, d'Alembert expresses wonder in Diderot’s process of getting from marble to flesh. At which point, Diderot states, “I make flesh, or soul . . . an actively sensitive define substance . . . for you will admit that a piece of marble is much further removed from a being that can feel, than a being that can feel is from a being that can think.” (Diderot, 4) d'Alembert agrees but points out that feeling is still not thinking.
Diderot tells a story about a geometrician who began with, “Nothing.” When d'Alembert protests, Diderot scolds him for taking “words too literally” and explains he meant, prior to the geometrician’s mother and father’s affair which resulted in d'Alembert’s birth and abandonment, along with his eventual adoption and education, the child had nothing. Thus, Diderot humiliates d'Alembert by pointing out his status as an abandoned bastard had it not been for his adoptive mother and education. Diderot states this all occurred because of, “eating and other purely mechanical operations.” (Diderot, 4) d'Alembert then responds, “You don't believe, then, in pre-existent germs?” (Diderot, 4) Diderot confirms this; stating the theory is irrational because matter is not infinitely divisible in nature and it is in contrary to experiment, “. . . you would seek in vain for these germs in the egg or in most animals before a certain age”. Thus Diderot rejects the 18th century concept of pre-existent germs and d'Alembert agrees. d'Alembert then suggests, that without pre-existent germs, the “original generation of animals” cannot be accounted for. Diderot responds by making a ‘which came first; hen or egg’ joke. Before pointing out the problem is that d'Alembert assumes “. . . animals were originally the same as they are now.” (Diderot, 4) Diderot declares that as insane, pointing out:
. . . can no more tell what they were originally than what they will become. The tiny worm, wriggling in the mud, may be in process of developing into a large animal; the huge animal, that terrifies us by its size, is perhaps on the way to becoming a worm, is perhaps a particular and transient production of this planet. (Diderot, 4) In discussing the transition from a feeling to a thinking being, Diderot states that even if he can’t accomplish demonstrating this; it wouldn’t impact what he has already established as a “sequence of Incontrovertible facts.” (Diderot, 4)
Next, Diderot asks if it would be OK “. . . to invent an agent whose attributes should be self-contradictory, a meaningless and unintelligible word?” (Diderot, 4) d'Alembert, states it would not be OK. This is followed by Diderot utilizing Socratic questioning to get d'Alembert to define a “perceiving being.” (Diderot, 4) When d'Alembert answers stating it would have memory, Diderot asks where memory came from and d'Alembert states “a certain organization.” (Diderot, 4) At this juncture, Diderot declares:
. . . if a being that can feel, and that possesses that organization that gives rise to memory, connects up the impressions it receives, forms through this connection a story which is that of its life, and so acquires consciousness of its identity, it can then deny, affirm, conclude and think.” (Diderot, 4)

Finally, Diderot uses an egg and states that with it, all religious schools and churches can be overthrown because it proves that a god is not essential to crating life:.
First there's a dot that quivers, a little thread that grows longer and takes on color; tissue is formed; a beak, tiny wings, eyes, feet appear; a yellowish material unwinds and produces intestines; it is an animal. . . moves, struggles, cries out . . .becomes covered with down; it sees . . . wall is broken; it comes out . . . unperceiving mass, before the germ is introduced. . .and after. . . Still only an unperceiving mass . . . germ itself is only a crude inert fluid. How will this mass develop into a different organization, to sensitiveness, to life? By means of heat. And what will produce the heat? Motion. What will be the successive effects of this motion? (Diderot, ) Now Diderot uses shame, stating that if d'Alembert sides with Descartes seeing the chick as a mere “imitative machine,” he will be laughed at by small kids and “philosophers will retort that if this be a machine then you, too, are a machine.” (Diderot, 4) Yet if d'Alembert admits that organization is the only difference between the chick and himself, that would demonstrate reason and honesty and from this he must conclude “. . .from inert matter, organized in a certain way, and impregnated with other inert matter, and given heat and motion, there results the faculty of sensation, life, memory, consciousness, passion and thought.” (Diderot, 4) Diderot then forces d'Alembert to choose by stating he has only two paths left and then follows the first path with many Socratic questions that serve the purpose of mocking the first path as seen below:
. . . to imagine . . . a hidden element that awaited the egg's development before revealing its presence, or to assume this invisible element crept in through the shell at a definite moment in the development. . . . what is this element? Did it occupy space or . . . not? How did it come, or did it escape without moving? What was it doing there or elsewhere? Was it created at the instant it was needed? Was it already in existence? Was it waiting for a home? If it was homogeneous it was material; if heterogeneous, one cannot account for its previous inertia nor its activity . . . (Diderot, 4)

Diderot follows up with pointing out how foolish d'Alembert would be if he were to make such basic “.
. . supposition that explains everything, namely the faculty of sensation as a general property of matter or a product of its organization. . .” Diderot adds that this defies common sense and would lead to, “an abyss of mysteries, contradictions and absurdities.” (Diderot, 4) d'Alembert futilely attempts to argue further before Diderot rages, “Metaphysico-theological nonsense!…Don't you see that all the qualities, all the forms by which nature becomes perceptible to our senses, are essentially indivisible?...cannot have more or less impenetrability.” (Diderot, 4) Diderot squelches this and other attempts before finally insulting d'Alembert’s intelligence:
. . . acknowledge . . . character of an effect when you see it produced, even if you cannot explain all the steps . . . Be logical . . . do not substitute…another cause which cannot be comprehended, whose connection with the effect is even more difficult to grasp, which engenders an infinite number of difficulties and solves not one of them. (Diderot,
) Diderot’s views relating to existing views of life and matter in the 18th century suggest he strongly opposed the prevailing concepts regarding conception which indicated that there were pre-existent germs and whished to challenge the definitions of his time. In addition to opposing theology/God, he was challenging all scientists to be open to learning and not accept static definitions. Diderot rejects materialism. Additionally, he rejects the necessity of purposefulness and believes in the concept of transference. Diderot utilizes logic and draws on epicurean philosophy, xxxxxx and d'Alembert’s own logic in order to convince d'Alembert to follow his views.