Proof that God exists?

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.

Subjective logic?

Read the last hundred or so sections of On Certainty, finishing up the book. I can't help but feel the book was off-target towards the end. Wittgenstein begins referring more frequently to subjective approaches to certainty - how other people can understand our certainty and what uncertainty means to communication. I don't consider the last sixth of the book to be nearly as well-written or powerful as, say, the middle half. Treating certainty within interpersonal communication as its own subject would require a separate book - weaving it into a discussion on personal certainty just doesn't seem appropriate.

That being said, Wittgenstein is a little hard to get through, but there's a lot to be said for his texts. I will have to reread him when I am better acquainted with logic, epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy in general.

On Certainty 2

Almost done with Wittgenstein. Despite learning much from his book, there is one thing I think he does wrong. He repeatedly brings up the fact that saying certain simplistic logic statements (atomic facts) is nonsensical. For example, if I said 'I know that is a tree', the person to whom I said it would not get much from it. He might think I was simple, or playing around. Wittegenstein dwells on this, and I think that it has no place in a book on logic and knowledge. The use of language in order to illustrate his points is unavoidable, but I think logic and knowledge can be investigated independently of language and semantics. Just because a language statement well be better or worse received does not make it more or less true. Semantics and language are completely subjective - whereas, in my opinion, logic and knowledge are not. 

On Certainty

After slogging through On Certainty for a while, I found something that really resonated with me. He had already written 'doubt presupposes certainty', but that in itself was not enough.

What can we 'know'? Our knowledge is based on a loose foundation of assumptions, essentially. Even the most unshakeable pieces of knowledge, such as how many fingers I have, are essentially just concretely held assumptions. I can imagine a situation in which people contrived to convince me otherwise - that I had 4 or 6 fingers, perhaps. If they put sufficient effort into their endeavor, they could very well succeed. But if I then doubted the number of fingers I have, then how could I have been said to 'know' that number in the first place? To know is to be infallible, at least philosophically, but clearly then there is not much, if anything at all, that we can know.

I think this is pretty important. We 'know', for instance, that solids do not just disappear. However, is it not technically possible? There is a probability that a given atom will interact with anti-matter or simply release itself from its bonds or any number of other things. On the order of the number of atoms that comprise a macroscopic object, these probabilities fall to zero. Well, almost. There is still a nonzero chance that a tree, for example, could simply vaporize. Empirically, we know this does not practicably happen. So we say, we 'know' it cannot happen. But this is a fallacy.

Logic and knowledge are concepts that I am interested in reading more about. After Wittgenstein perhaps I will try Russell or Moore. 

Stoicism

Just finished Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius. It has once again piqued my interest in stoicism. Of course Epictetus' Enchiridion was a little more straightforward, but Aurelius has some interesting takes on the old philosophy and certainly brings something to the table. I don't quite know where to look for more stoic literature, though I don't think it will be too hard to find.

I'm having a bit of trouble trying to apply stoicism to everyday life anyway. I still find myself being angered by the actions of my roommates, mostly. This of course means I need more study and reflection.

I am close to finishing Wittgenstein. I had to cut short reading the Tractatus, as I simply couldn't digest it. Wittgenstein writes about ontology, epistemology, and logic. A little above my grade level, but I'm learning rapidly. His blue book was good, brown book was better, and On Certainty is best. His arguments are giving me a background in epistemology, and I am interested in pursuing that branch of philosophy further.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche is on deck. I swore I wouldn't read him again, but a knowledgeable classmate of mine thought I would like it. I'll read it on faith.

Interesting tidbit of the day: from a commentary on Aurelius by George Long, politics are merely an extension of ethics. They are both the study of correct living, one for the many and the other for the one. I liked this viewpoint.