Discourse on Method was quite refreshing, I enjoyed returning to the dry, straightforward writing of the older days. I was rather impressed to find that Descartes was a stoic, which subsequently led me to discovering there was a noted period of revived stoicism in the 16th and 17th centuries. I rather hope some of the philosophers of the day wrote on that subject.
In Chapter IV, Descartes proves God exists. Well, in his view he does. In the spirit of his mathematical reduction of all philosophy, indeed all natural sciences, I have broken the proof into three 'atomic propositions' (thanks, Wittgenstein!).
I am imperfect, because I doubt. This followed directly from his oft-quoted 'Cogito, ergo sum'. I find no fault here. Doubt, among other human mental activities such as sadness and disappointment, are undeniable facts of the human condition. And I do agree that they make us imperfect. It would seem that if anyone were able to quell their sadness, or do away with disappointment, they would be a better and happier person. Closer to perfection, you could say. So yes, human beings are imperfect. This does raise a troubling question, however - what does this outlook tell us about animals, or better yet, insects? For insects truly are alive. We are starting out here to prove God, so necessarily we must begin without Him - and so, humans cannot be separated from insects by the assumption of a soul. However, insects (it would seem) do not feel sadness, nor disappointment, nor doubt. Are they, then, perfect? A question for another day.
Imperfection requires that there be perfection. Not his words, but this essentially covers the second atomic proposition. I do not buy into this one. First of all, it is necessary that we define perfection. In this case it seems we are talking about happiness, essentially, though it sounds more banal that I mean it. But can a person ever be 100% happy? Can any living or thinking thing be 100% satisfied? I am not sure of it. Secondly, I do not believe imperfection implies the existence of perfection. In Descartes's argument, he knows of perfection, and since ideas cannot simply arise in his head, it must have come from something, namely in this case, the existence of God. Well, this is problematic. I do not think the mean implies the extreme - I know of good and evil, but cannot imagine a 'pure' evil. And I also do not believe that ideas cannot simply be thought up, with the necessary seeds of course. Imperfection itself is enough to spark the idea of perfection, despite the absence or presence of it.
God is the only perfect being, therefore He exists. Also a non-starter, though I'm closer to believing this one. I do not believe God is perfect. Biblical stories show us that God was persuaded in favor of or against certain actions (doubt), showed remorse for actions, and of course, expressed disappointment. How then can He be perfect?
It may be worth noting that I do believe in God, and that He is supremely good, etc. I simply disagree with the above proof.
In Chapter IV, Descartes proves God exists. Well, in his view he does. In the spirit of his mathematical reduction of all philosophy, indeed all natural sciences, I have broken the proof into three 'atomic propositions' (thanks, Wittgenstein!).
I am imperfect, because I doubt. This followed directly from his oft-quoted 'Cogito, ergo sum'. I find no fault here. Doubt, among other human mental activities such as sadness and disappointment, are undeniable facts of the human condition. And I do agree that they make us imperfect. It would seem that if anyone were able to quell their sadness, or do away with disappointment, they would be a better and happier person. Closer to perfection, you could say. So yes, human beings are imperfect. This does raise a troubling question, however - what does this outlook tell us about animals, or better yet, insects? For insects truly are alive. We are starting out here to prove God, so necessarily we must begin without Him - and so, humans cannot be separated from insects by the assumption of a soul. However, insects (it would seem) do not feel sadness, nor disappointment, nor doubt. Are they, then, perfect? A question for another day.
Imperfection requires that there be perfection. Not his words, but this essentially covers the second atomic proposition. I do not buy into this one. First of all, it is necessary that we define perfection. In this case it seems we are talking about happiness, essentially, though it sounds more banal that I mean it. But can a person ever be 100% happy? Can any living or thinking thing be 100% satisfied? I am not sure of it. Secondly, I do not believe imperfection implies the existence of perfection. In Descartes's argument, he knows of perfection, and since ideas cannot simply arise in his head, it must have come from something, namely in this case, the existence of God. Well, this is problematic. I do not think the mean implies the extreme - I know of good and evil, but cannot imagine a 'pure' evil. And I also do not believe that ideas cannot simply be thought up, with the necessary seeds of course. Imperfection itself is enough to spark the idea of perfection, despite the absence or presence of it.
God is the only perfect being, therefore He exists. Also a non-starter, though I'm closer to believing this one. I do not believe God is perfect. Biblical stories show us that God was persuaded in favor of or against certain actions (doubt), showed remorse for actions, and of course, expressed disappointment. How then can He be perfect?
It may be worth noting that I do believe in God, and that He is supremely good, etc. I simply disagree with the above proof.
No comments:
Post a Comment