1. In the Third Meditation, Descartes concludes that there are two things he can know for certain: 1) He is a thinking thing that exists, and 2) the existence of God. He asserts that there must be a cause for an idea, following that there must be as much perfection in the cause as there is in the content of the idea. Descartes conceives that even if the idea about some things might come from him, there must be something beyond that started it because “something cannot arise from nothing” (12). Therefore, he considers that God exists because according to his new understanding, there has to be a powerful and perfect thing or “higher form” that causes the idea. 2. Personally, I loved the Fourth Meditation, as he talks about the will and mentions the universe. Just as he finds the base for his new belief system in the Third Meditation, he continued looking for the answers to questions that would make him understand why, if there is a God, he can make mistakes. Descartes’ conclusion about human’s incontrollable use of will when our intellect’s knowledge is limited makes perfect sense to me. Moreover, I enjoyed when he stated that we “should look at the universe as a whole, not at created things one by one” (19) because we might not be aware that something imperfect might have a function in the universe that would be seen perfect in that light.
1. In Descartes Third Meditation, it seems he is figuring his place with God and what role does God play within his imperfections. Descartes is aware that he is a thing that thinks and what ever he perceives is to be true. Descartes also questions himself several times explaining what does it mean to have substance and how God played a part in creating what he believes substance is. Once Descartes accepted his imperfections and realized he is learning more because no one can be perfect. On page 16 it states, "Each perfection is to be found somewhere in the universe, but no one thing has them all".
2. Throughout the Third Meditation and Fourth Meditation, Descartes states he could not exist without having some idea of God. One interesting point that Descartes stated on page 17, "By God I mean the very being the idea of whom is within me - the one that has no defects and has all those perfection that I can't grasp but can somehow touch with my thought". He explains that he is know that God exists but within in mind. He know that God is not capable of deceiving him as well because it is not in God's nature.
1) On page 22 in the Fourth Meditation, Descartes concludes that in order to deal with being an imperfect being, he will get into the habit of avoiding error by withholding judgement about things that aren't clear. I was a little confused by this statement because in the meditations he stated that the only two things he is certain of is that himself and God exists. So if everything else is unclear than how can he go through life without judging for example that the day is cloudy and pleasant? 2) I thought it was interesting in the Fourth Meditation how Descartes distinguishes the intellect from the will on page 19. He describes the will as perfect which caught my eye since previously, he describes God as perfect and anything that God creates is less or as perfect as him. He describes the will as the only thing in our nature that is perfect and has no limits, and concludes that 'my will has a wider scope than my intellect has' on page 20.
1). I really enjoyed when Descartes recognized that he knew little of the body but much more of the mind and God; Descartes writes, "...very little it truly known about the bodies, whereas much more is known about the human mind and still more about God." (Descartes 17) Descartes believes that God created him, thus he made him in his imagine. I like this passage from the article because I too believe the same thing. If god made man in his image, then through our own intellect, we can find great information about who God is.
2). In the fourth meditation, Truth and Falsity, Descartes stresses that God would never deceive him. The reason behind this statement is that he believes God is describe has something with no error, and "Only someone who has something wrong with him will engage in tricky deception." (Descartes 18) Again, I agree with Descartes, I don't believe God deceives people but is only there to help us.
1. In Descartes; third meditation he is building off a new foundation for philosophical thought. One that he bore in the previous meditation. This foundation being that there is one thing that he can sure of, and that is that he is a thinking thing, and as a thinking thing -- he exists.
2. Something I found interesting in the 3rd and 4th meditations were how, using just this sole foundation, Descartes was able to intelligently expand his certainty into realm of God, professing that his existence must be, and from this notion expanding upon the nature of God. Descartes' idea on the interplay of God's will and the existence of his own was also quite interesting.
In the Third Mediation, Descartes concludes that he exists and the he is a thinking thing, also trying to determine hoe he can know these things. He also concludes that the knowledge of cogito is clear and distinct perceptions. Coming to the ultimate conclusion as of now that all clear and perceptions as referred to "the natural light" must be certain. I find it interesting that Descartes even into the Fourth Meditation is still finding ways to hold on to his religious beliefs of God, and finding ways to justify his existence and doing/ also contradicting his beliefs by stating that God can deceive us of the clear and of the natural light. Bringing everything back into doubt. n the Fourth Mediation Descartes presents that God exists and that thought or the existence comes from his intellect and not from his senses or even his imagination. He also states that God could not deceive him, since deceiving would be a sign of weakness or even a sign of not a omnipotent God. Also I find it interesting that the thought of if God created him that he (God ) would be responsible for all the judgements and thoughts of Descartes. Hence the faculty of the judgment and doubts have to be infallible until the use is correctly done.
Descartes mentions fire providing the experience of heat as God providing the experience of God. I don’t remember this specific example from any of my previous readings, but I thought it was particularly helpful in justifying the existence of some kind of external world. Just like man has no internal concept of heat, he has no internal concept of God. He only ever feels hot when his environment exerts heat on him. Descartes thinks that God can be justified the same way. God’s existence is what gives man the experience of God.
In reading Descartes fourth meditation I am reminded of the many medieval philosophers who attempted to solve the “problem of evil.” While Descartes is not exploring that question exactly, his attempt to address human failings, (one of which could be Evil) takes components of the earlier philosophers’ arguments and attempts to make them compatible with his new epistemological position of post-doubt certainty.
1.) In Descartes’ Third Meditation, he attempts to prove the existence of God by contemplating his own limits and imperfections. Descartes finally arrives at the conclusion that God does exist since he has this innate thought of a supreme being ingrained in his mind. Descartes believes this notion placed in us serves as God’s mark or stamp on his work from creating us which I never thought of before and found very interesting.
2.) In Descartes’ Fourth Meditation, he discusses our cause of errors as it relates to our free will given by God and arriving at truth. He discovers that abstaining from making judgments or forming opinions when the intellect is unclear is the best way to avoid mistakes. Also, the best way to seek truth is to focus on things that we understand perfectly. However, he still believes we will make errors in our actions and arriving at truth since we are imperfect beings unlike God.
1.) There were a couple things that I found to be hard concepts to understand in the 3rd meditation. First and foremost Descartes argument that something can be more or less real than another thing, I tried at some length to digest this concept but I did not fully get it. To me the idea of something being more or less perfect, better or worse makes sense, but the notion of something being more or less real looses me. Secondly I found that Descartes use of intuition to be kind of confusing, I do not get how just having the idea that God exists proves in any way that God actually exists. This line of reasoning seems kind of murky to me.
2.) In the forth mediation made more sense to my mind. It seems pretty intuitive that if we permit the premise 'God exists' to be true it does follow that this God being supremely good would not create a universe that was less than the most perfect that it could be. Even if this configuration of the universe seems flawed from the limited perspective of mortals it does follow that these flaws could totally be justified if only we had a larger more cosmic perspective of the totality of things. I was lost on one thing, Descartes seems to believe that we can only act according to what we know to be certain, and while I can not deny that certainty is the most perfect kind of knowledge; I struggle to think of single thing that I know to be certain. Because of this I believe the premise that one should with hold judgement unless one is certain about a given item of knowledge to be near-impossible and thus a broken maxim for the guidance of action.
1. The entire theme of all these writings is fascinating to me. I enjoy discourse on the existence of a higher power or "God". It is interesting how a topic like this is truly timeless, for we will never know the "truth" about these sorts of questions. A piece that stands out to me is when Pascal writes "If there is a God, he is infinitely comprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, he bears no relation to us. We are therefore incapable of knowing either what he is or whether he is." (2)This claim is interesting because a common theme in many religions is the idea that believers have "seen" God or "know" that he exists indubitably. In fact, we have no physical evidence. Pascal makes a fair point here by saying that we will never truly know who or what or if God is what we believe he is, we are limited to faith and belief only. 2. If there is no real evidence of the existence of God, why is religion and faith such a widespread phenomena across the world? Why is faith such an attractive concept to so many people? What does a belief in a higher power satisfy?
1. Initially, I had thought Descartes assertion that this vague sense of perfection human beings have was inscrutable, simply because there is almost nothing to explain why we even have nebulous conceptions of the infinite, unchanging, omnipotent. However, as Hobbes said, this can be due to a negation. This can simply be attributable to reality, and desire in consequence, to be inexhaustible.
2. Pascal's Wager always came across as cheap to as it seemed like a desperate gamble given to the non-believer. Doesn't this create inauthentic belief, as it puts the weight of eternal gain over virtue and the love of God? Also, what God? Isn't it even a bigger gamble considering that out of all the religions, I may be choosing the wrong God and thus wasting my life? This Wager seems grounded in fear for those who deliberately take while knowing their faith is shaky and subject to change.
1. In the Third Meditation, Descartes concludes that there are two things he can know for certain: 1) He is a thinking thing that exists, and 2) the existence of God. He asserts that there must be a cause for an idea, following that there must be as much perfection in the cause as there is in the content of the idea. Descartes conceives that even if the idea about some things might come from him, there must be something beyond that started it because “something cannot arise from nothing” (12). Therefore, he considers that God exists because according to his new understanding, there has to be a powerful and perfect thing or “higher form” that causes the idea.
ReplyDelete2. Personally, I loved the Fourth Meditation, as he talks about the will and mentions the universe. Just as he finds the base for his new belief system in the Third Meditation, he continued looking for the answers to questions that would make him understand why, if there is a God, he can make mistakes. Descartes’ conclusion about human’s incontrollable use of will when our intellect’s knowledge is limited makes perfect sense to me. Moreover, I enjoyed when he stated that we “should look at the universe as a whole, not at created things one by one” (19) because we might not be aware that something imperfect might have a function in the universe that would be seen perfect in that light.
1. In Descartes Third Meditation, it seems he is figuring his place with God and what role does God play within his imperfections. Descartes is aware that he is a thing that thinks and what ever he perceives is to be true. Descartes also questions himself several times explaining what does it mean to have substance and how God played a part in creating what he believes substance is. Once Descartes accepted his imperfections and realized he is learning more because no one can be perfect. On page 16 it states, "Each perfection is to be found somewhere in the universe, but no one thing has them all".
ReplyDelete2. Throughout the Third Meditation and Fourth Meditation, Descartes states he could not exist without having some idea of God. One interesting point that Descartes stated on page 17, "By God I mean the very being the idea of whom is within me - the one that has no defects and has all those perfection that I can't grasp but can somehow touch with my thought". He explains that he is know that God exists but within in mind. He know that God is not capable of deceiving him as well because it is not in God's nature.
1) On page 22 in the Fourth Meditation, Descartes concludes that in order to deal with being an imperfect being, he will get into the habit of avoiding error by withholding judgement about things that aren't clear. I was a little confused by this statement because in the meditations he stated that the only two things he is certain of is that himself and God exists. So if everything else is unclear than how can he go through life without judging for example that the day is cloudy and pleasant?
ReplyDelete2) I thought it was interesting in the Fourth Meditation how Descartes distinguishes the intellect from the will on page 19. He describes the will as perfect which caught my eye since previously, he describes God as perfect and anything that God creates is less or as perfect as him. He describes the will as the only thing in our nature that is perfect and has no limits, and concludes that 'my will has a wider scope than my intellect has' on page 20.
1). I really enjoyed when Descartes recognized that he knew little of the body but much more of the mind and God; Descartes writes, "...very little it truly known about the bodies, whereas much more is known about the human mind and still more about God." (Descartes 17) Descartes believes that God created him, thus he made him in his imagine. I like this passage from the article because I too believe the same thing. If god made man in his image, then through our own intellect, we can find great information about who God is.
ReplyDelete2). In the fourth meditation, Truth and Falsity, Descartes stresses that God would never deceive him. The reason behind this statement is that he believes God is describe has something with no error, and "Only someone who has something wrong with him will engage in tricky deception." (Descartes 18) Again, I agree with Descartes, I don't believe God deceives people but is only there to help us.
1. In Descartes; third meditation he is building off a new foundation for philosophical thought. One that he bore in the previous meditation. This foundation being that there is one thing that he can sure of, and that is that he is a thinking thing, and as a thinking thing -- he exists.
ReplyDelete2. Something I found interesting in the 3rd and 4th meditations were how, using just this sole foundation, Descartes was able to intelligently expand his certainty into realm of God, professing that his existence must be, and from this notion expanding upon the nature of God. Descartes' idea on the interplay of God's will and the existence of his own was also quite interesting.
In the Third Mediation, Descartes concludes that he exists and the he is a thinking thing, also trying to determine hoe he can know these things. He also concludes that the knowledge of cogito is clear and distinct perceptions. Coming to the ultimate conclusion as of now that all clear and perceptions as referred to "the natural light" must be certain. I find it interesting that Descartes even into the Fourth Meditation is still finding ways to hold on to his religious beliefs of God, and finding ways to justify his existence and doing/ also contradicting his beliefs by stating that God can deceive us of the clear and of the natural light. Bringing everything back into doubt.
ReplyDeleten the Fourth Mediation Descartes presents that God exists and that thought or the existence comes from his intellect and not from his senses or even his imagination. He also states that God could not deceive him, since deceiving would be a sign of weakness or even a sign of not a omnipotent God. Also I find it interesting that the thought of if God created him that he (God ) would be responsible for all the judgements and thoughts of Descartes. Hence the faculty of the judgment and doubts have to be infallible until the use is correctly done.
Descartes mentions fire providing the experience of heat as God providing the experience of God. I don’t remember this specific example from any of my previous readings, but I thought it was particularly helpful in justifying the existence of some kind of external world. Just like man has no internal concept of heat, he has no internal concept of God. He only ever feels hot when his environment exerts heat on him. Descartes thinks that God can be justified the same way. God’s existence is what gives man the experience of God.
ReplyDeleteIn reading Descartes fourth meditation I am reminded of the many medieval philosophers who attempted to solve the “problem of evil.” While Descartes is not exploring that question exactly, his attempt to address human failings, (one of which could be Evil) takes components of the earlier philosophers’ arguments and attempts to make them compatible with his new epistemological position of post-doubt certainty.
1.) In Descartes’ Third Meditation, he attempts to prove the existence of God by contemplating his own limits and imperfections. Descartes finally arrives at the conclusion that God does exist since he has this innate thought of a supreme being ingrained in his mind. Descartes believes this notion placed in us serves as God’s mark or stamp on his work from creating us which I never thought of before and found very interesting.
ReplyDelete2.) In Descartes’ Fourth Meditation, he discusses our cause of errors as it relates to our free will given by God and arriving at truth. He discovers that abstaining from making judgments or forming opinions when the intellect is unclear is the best way to avoid mistakes. Also, the best way to seek truth is to focus on things that we understand perfectly. However, he still believes we will make errors in our actions and arriving at truth since we are imperfect beings unlike God.
1.) There were a couple things that I found to be hard concepts to understand in the 3rd meditation. First and foremost Descartes argument that something can be more or less real than another thing, I tried at some length to digest this concept but I did not fully get it. To me the idea of something being more or less perfect, better or worse makes sense, but the notion of something being more or less real looses me. Secondly I found that Descartes use of intuition to be kind of confusing, I do not get how just having the idea that God exists proves in any way that God actually exists. This line of reasoning seems kind of murky to me.
ReplyDelete2.) In the forth mediation made more sense to my mind. It seems pretty intuitive that if we permit the premise 'God exists' to be true it does follow that this God being supremely good would not create a universe that was less than the most perfect that it could be. Even if this configuration of the universe seems flawed from the limited perspective of mortals it does follow that these flaws could totally be justified if only we had a larger more cosmic perspective of the totality of things. I was lost on one thing, Descartes seems to believe that we can only act according to what we know to be certain, and while I can not deny that certainty is the most perfect kind of knowledge; I struggle to think of single thing that I know to be certain. Because of this I believe the premise that one should with hold judgement unless one is certain about a given item of knowledge to be near-impossible and thus a broken maxim for the guidance of action.
1. The entire theme of all these writings is fascinating to me. I enjoy discourse on the existence of a higher power or "God". It is interesting how a topic like this is truly timeless, for we will never know the "truth" about these sorts of questions. A piece that stands out to me is when Pascal writes "If there is a God, he is infinitely comprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, he bears no relation to us. We are therefore incapable of knowing either what he is or whether he is." (2)This claim is interesting because a common theme in many religions is the idea that believers have "seen" God or "know" that he exists indubitably. In fact, we have no physical evidence. Pascal makes a fair point here by saying that we will never truly know who or what or if God is what we believe he is, we are limited to faith and belief only.
ReplyDelete2. If there is no real evidence of the existence of God, why is religion and faith such a widespread phenomena across the world? Why is faith such an attractive concept to so many people? What does a belief in a higher power satisfy?
1. Initially, I had thought Descartes assertion that this vague sense of perfection human beings have was inscrutable, simply because there is almost nothing to explain why we even have nebulous conceptions of the infinite, unchanging, omnipotent. However, as Hobbes said, this can be due to a negation. This can simply be attributable to reality, and desire in consequence, to be inexhaustible.
ReplyDelete2. Pascal's Wager always came across as cheap to as it seemed like a desperate gamble given to the non-believer. Doesn't this create inauthentic belief, as it puts the weight of eternal gain over virtue and the love of God? Also, what God? Isn't it even a bigger gamble considering that out of all the religions, I may be choosing the wrong God and thus wasting my life? This Wager seems grounded in fear for those who deliberately take while knowing their faith is shaky and subject to change.