Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2005 7:19 pm**

Thought you might find this interesting. Descartes was a great philosopher, among other things. In From Skepticism to Conviction, he writes:

I have been nourished on letters since my childhood, and since I was given to believe that by their means a clear and certain knowledge could be obtained of all that is useful in life, I had an extreme desire to acquire instruction.

But as soon as I had achieved the entire course of study at the close of which one is usually received into the ranks of the learned, I entirely changed my opinion...

As regards all the opinions which, up to that time, I had embraced, I thought I could not do better than try once and for all to sweep them completely away. Later on they might be replaced, either by others which were better, or by the same when I had made them conform to the uniformity of a rational scheme. I firmly believe that by this means I should succeed much better than if I had built on the foundations and principles of which I had allowed myself to be persuaded in youth without having inquired into the truth. My design has never extended beyond trying to reform my own opinions and to build on a foundation which is entirely my own.

I was not seeking to imitate the skeptics, who only doubt for the sake of doubting and pretend always to be uncertain. On the contrary, my design was nly to provide myself with good grounds for assurance, to reject the quicksand and mud in order to find the rock or clay...

I suppose, then, that all the things that I see are false. I persuade myself that nothing has ever existed of all that my fallacious memory represents to me. I consider that I possess no senses. I imagine that my body, figure, extention, motion, and place are but the fictions of my mind. What, then, can be esteemed as true? Perhaps nothing at all, unless there is nothing in the world that is certain.

But immediately I notice that while I wish to think all things false, it is nonetheless absolutely essential that I, who wish to think this, should truly exist. There is a powerful and cunning deceiver who employs his ingenuity in misleading me. Let it be granted. It follows the more that I exist, if he deceives me. If I did not exist, he could not deceive me. This truth, "I think, therefore I am; cogito, ergo sum," is so certain, so assured, that all the most extravagant skepticism is incapable of shaking it. This truth, "I am, I exist," I can receive without scrupple as the first principle of the philosophy for which I am seeking...

I am certain that I am a thing which thinks. But if I am indeed certain of this, I must know what is is requisite to render me certain of anything. I must possess a standard of certainty. In this first knowledge which I have gained, what is there that assures me of its truth? Nothing exept the clear and distinct perception of what I state...

All things which I perceive very clearly and very distinctly are true. If I have heretofore judged that such matters could be doubted, it was because it came into my mind that perhaps a God might have endowed me with such a nature that I might have been deceived ever concerning things which seemed to me most manifest. I see no reason to believe that there is a God who is a deceiver; however, as yet I have not satisfied myself that there is a God at all.

I must inquire whethere there is a God. And, if I find that there is a God, I must also inquire whether He may be a deceiver. For, without a knowledge of these truths, I do not see that I can ever be certain of anything...

There is the idea of God. Is this idea something that could have originated in, been caused by, me? By the name God I understand a being that is infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, by which I myself and everything else (if anything else does exist) have been created.

Now, all these qualities are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of originating in me alone. Hence, from what was premised above, we must conclude that God necessarily exists as the origin of the idea I have of Him...

The whole strength of the argument which I have here used to prove the existence of God consists in this: It is not possible that my nature should wbat it is, and that I should have in myself the idea of a God, if God did not exist. God, whose idea is in me, possesses all those supreme perfections of which our mind may have some idea but without understanding them all, is liable to no errors or defects, and has none of those marks which denote imperfection. From this it is manifest that He cannot be a deceiver, since fraud and deception proceed form defect.

[Lastly] He has given me a very great inclination to believe that my ideas of sensible objects are sent or conveyed to me by external material objects. I do not see how He could be defended from the accusation of deceit if these ideas were produced in me by any cause other than material objects. Hence we must allow that material objects exist.

Very insightful.

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2005 5:24 am**

If debateable. While I applaud his intentions, and of course, have always in a sense agreed with his basic principle, I have likewise always found a fundamental fault in his reasoning.

Descartes wrote:There is the idea of God. Is this idea something that could have originated in, been caused by, me? By the name God I understand a being that is infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, by which I myself and everything else (if anything else does exist) have been created.

And where did he get that perception of the meaning of god from in the first place?

Descartes wrote:Now, all these qualities are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of originating in me alone. Hence, from what was premised above, we must conclude that God necessarily exists as the origin of the idea I have of Him...

Apart from the fact that the idea he has of god sprang, not fully fledged from the ether, but from his past experiences with other peoples opinions of god, those qualities are perceivable in our lack of them. We recognise that we possess parts of these qualities, and that each part we possess, for example knowledge, makes us more aware of greater parts of the same thing that we have not yet achieved. To assume that there must be something which possess all parts, is supposition at best.

Descartes wrote:The whole strength of the argument which I have here used to prove the existence of God consists in this: It is not possible that my nature should be what it is, and that I should have in myself the idea of a God, if God did not exist. God, whose idea is in me, possesses all those supreme perfections of which our mind may have some idea but without understanding them all, is liable to no errors or defects, and has none of those marks which denote imperfection. From this it is manifest that He cannot be a deceiver, since fraud and deception proceed form defect.

What is there to give rise to the independant idea that there must be something without flaw? The existence of things with flaws does not suggest that something without it must exist. At best, it's wishful thinking. Surely is we look at it inductively, we would conclude that all things so far observed have flaws, therefore the overwhelming likelihood is that all things have flaws?

If Descartes had been raised in isolation, never had the word/name/concept "god" explained to him, never had the ideas of fairness, right, justice or morality mentioned, let alone explained, to him, I'd think more of his "independent" reasoning. He begins by assuming that he, and only he, exists, independent of sensation, emotion, thought. Then prompty applies the concepts that society has taught him to associate with "god" to the idea? And concludes that because he has "come up with" the idea of god, then there must be one.

(Thoroughly enjoyable post, Lord Mhoram.

)

--Avatar

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2005 10:56 am**

I had heard about Rene's second conclusion, but never read this much of it before. I had assumed he was a religious person who set out to prove God's existence. After reading this, I'm not too sure that's not the case. Doesn't it assume that the only two things that truly exist are himself and God? After all, if other people exist, he could have gotten the idea of God from them. After his brilliant first conclusion, I think the more logical thing to work on second would have been other people. See if those - he interacts with daily; who have other ideas (not all of which he should assume he came up with himself); who are the seeming source of most of the information he has ever aquired - actually exist. Or work on the kinds of things that he would assume were real and physical if, say, he had been abandoned on a tropical island as an infant and survived. Work on the physical facts of existence before moving on to the supernatural. "If that 'piano' they're raising on a 'wire' falls onto my head, will I continue to think; to exist? I've seen it happen to other 'people,' who may not, in fact, truly exist, but that doesn't mean such principles apply to me. If I believe I will no longer think, or exist, then does it mean the piano, in fact, exists?"

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2005 11:17 am**

Yeah, he could have done it that way. He claims he didn't assume the existence of god, but rather deduced it from his thoughts. However, he fails to take into account all those other things which gave him that concept in the first place.

Even taking Fists suggestion there, it's pretty much impossible to imagine that none of those things had been known to him. That "imprinting" has an effect on us that we're frequently blind to.

--Avatar

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2005 11:25 am**

He concluded that god must exist because the idea of god could not have originated in his self. If we assume that other people exist, we most probably assume that they are like unto ourselves - in which case, the idea of god could not have originated with themselves either. In the realm of his particular reasoning, when he assumes the idea of god did not come from himself, he also must assume it could not have originated from any human being - therefore, because the idea of god exists, god must exist.

The reasoning fails for the reasons Avatar mentioned - "those qualities are perceivable in our lack of them".

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2005 6:28 pm**

By that reasoning, The Land exists.

I can live with that.

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2005 8:38 pm**

And Santa Claus!
I certainly couldn't have come up with a North Pole gift giver who comes down chimbleys, etc. Way too many logical flaws.

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2005 8:56 pm**

Heh. I think Nuk and Plissken show the flaw with Descartes' reasoning, as explained by Murrin. Just because he couldn't have come up with the idea of God, doesn't mean nobody else could have. It also doesn't mean the idea of God couldn't have evolved over time, starting as nothing more than some person's thought that maybe all of this didn't come about without help.

Posted: **Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:38 am**

The thought didn't even need to be so complex. The knowledge that things can be created, leads to the assumption that someone must have created the world.

Now while the world was certainly "created" in a sense, our habit of anthropomophism turned it into a "personality" that did so. The easiest answer to an, at that time, unsolveable dilemma was that somebody had done it.

Unfortunately, despite the usual relevance of Occam's razor, reality is rarely that simple.

--Avatar

Posted: **Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:00 am**

...I've always had a problem with DesCartes, " I think therefore I am". Applying a truth test of the converse is where I meet up with falsehood.
" I am what I think" has some issues.

There is the idea that a human being is more than what it thinks. What it is capable of, what it actually does, what it is when it doesn't think at all,,(the olde, sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits). are some of the easier aspects of what I refer to.

..Descartes is being pointedly descriptive of the " Individual" not general in orientation of the " I am" some suggest. As suggested above then, he seems to have no problem applying general to the Individual in the belief mechanism applied to a God. Its kind of like ...saying..God is Love,,then turning that around to...Love is a God. If God is more than Love, then the turned would have to be a lower case g. ( For me,,I believe alot of folks actually experience the,,Love is a god,, and mistakenly claim the experience as God is Love.)

..There is the higher plane abstract as well. Descartes " I think therefore I am.." implying a certain realm of existance upon " thinking". Perhaps populated by other " thinking" I's. Much like a chatroom,,I chat, therefore I am,,,and while Sally chat by the seashore She sat and while she sat she chat...All that way just for that, what was I thinking?..Anyway,," I think therefore I am,," has a certain haughtyness to it, implying a elevated status that may be worthy of the cliche'd national source. ..the rest of you neandertals,,aren't..until you learn to think...Now which one of you has a light?...I digress. I've always sensed a special realm of " I am'ness" being at the jouneys end started by the engine " I think"..being implied by Rene. I really never believed he was stating just the simplistic.

The fascinating is how he turns " I think" into " proof that there is a God"..by simply stating ,,Ithink,,I couldn't have ever thought up the concept of God..therefore God put the thought in my head. And,,in there, is the final falsehood. What an amazingly small , pessimistic, parocial, limited perspective on the capabilties and potential of the Human brain!
Okay, true I say that from todays advantage.But, thats my proof. Of all the modern advances and achievements of mankind,,how many would have been conceivable by any Human of Rene's time? As I recall,,Descartes was of the time and school when the prevailing thought was that indeed,,mankind was in the golden Classic times of achieving Truth( read as final answers).
In other words,,Rene didn't have it rite because he thought he had the Final answer. It should have been..I think,,therefore i come up with an answer,,but that makes me think somemore,,and other questions come up, so I think some more,,or visually...!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!. The idea that man couldn't have come up with the concept of God is laffable from what we know now. The historical record clearly shows,,that when Og jumped out from under the trees and walked uprite..it looked up and saw the stars and said,,what the heck is that?,,and has been assigning every other unanswerable question ever since, to the Great Keeper of Unknown and Mystifying,,God. .............MEL

Posted: **Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:00 am**

You do enjoy yourself, don't you Lurch?

Pretty good post though, I certainly agree to some extent with the type of "arrogance" that you discern in his statement, and with what I've quoted below.

lurch wrote:...The fascinating is how he turns " I think" into " proof that there is a God"..by simply stating ,,Ithink,,I couldn't have ever thought up the concept of God..therefore God put the thought in my head. And,,in there, is the final falsehood. What an amazingly small , pessimistic, parocial, limited perspective on the capabilties and potential of the Human brain!

--A

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:21 am**

...I enjoy my muse...or..I enjoy letting my muse run unfettered...MEL

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:31 am**

lurch,

I was aware that the "I think, therefore I am" maxim referred to the human ability to reason.

What is haughty about declaring man's ability to think for himself?

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2005 5:04 am**

..Nothing...but notice the flite of the "I"..:..from ,more diligently I attend to them,...to..less do they appear capable of orginating in me alone..to...we..must...conclude,,then back to ...the idea of I have of him.
..Its like hes allowing Us to join his wonderfulness..because you see,,he is one of the Enlightened...That is the problem of the whole " Enlightened" era. They thought they were in the Golden Age of Reasoning. They fell in Love with their images in the mirror. They thought they had the Final Answers. They didn't question enough and settled for some weak stuff. .

Now..something way back in the brain tells me that ,,Rene was pushing the envelope even for those times. The Church was very much in a powerful position. So, to some extent, he had to watch hisself. He uses the word,,"idea" all around but in the last,,opt's with weak logic,,to a 3d tangilble God. Maybe he had to. I can go with descarte to the point of God being an IDEAL,,therefore agreeing with you on the declaring mans ability to think for himself,,but the last bit is circular and comes across as a compromise with the Church and therefore maintaining a position in society. The concept of " mans ability to think for himself" suffers as a result.

Again, the reverse of " Ithink , therefore I am"..I am what I think,,reflects a narrow , limited perspective on Humanity, in reality. There is more to it than that,,So , in a sense,,even Descarte is admitting ,,Thinking,,Thought is limited in application in the real. But he can't say that rite out. ..MEL

Kevin's Watch

René Descartes on Existence, God, et al.

René Descartes on Existence, God, et al.

Re: René Descartes on Existence, God, et al.

I drink, therefore,,or five,,or six...

Re: I drink, therefore,,or five,,or six...

,,,putting it another way...

Good question...