Right Before Your Eyes

With the idea of an external reality being one that exists outside of the realm of human observation, we often ponder the truth of what is laid out before us. To transcend this perspective would require an abandonment of the senses and a willingness to recreate the world according to truth. However, this transcendence is unfortunately only one of speculation and currently remains outside the realm of what is possible for our species. Even so, it is in this impossibility that we thrive on the idea of the abstract and can think critically about the knowledge that may or may not exist beyond our scape of perception. We instead create ideas out of theoretical building blocks, attempting to approach reality from every tangible angle until we've found a something that may resemble truth. This universe shrouds itself in mysteries, each more complicated than the next, but the human drive to understand what is around us - what is real - has led to tremendous strides in putting together many pieces of this massive puzzle. Anything is possible if you start on the right side of infinity.

This is late, but I was thinking about it as I sat in church. Last week we discussed Aquinas and his proofs for God's existence. He believed that the only way we can know what God's qualities are we have to examine what he is not. One thing we discovered he was not is body. God is not like man and therefore does not have a body like man and it is absurd to think of him as body. At church yesterday, the pastor talked about events such as the resurrection of Christ. I realized this and other events that pastors describe as if God were a body. Now that I think about it, it is an important realization because all the qualities we know God to have are called into question if we say God is body. Maybe one day I will have enough standing in the world to be able to tell pastors about this. Everyone should question what they believe to come up with reasonable explanations for it.

Truth?

Descarte speaks about the deception through perception. He doubts his senses are telling him the truth. often times in dreams people wake to reality wondering if these happens really happen or were they imagined. the question of reality comes into play through our reality of knowing the possibility of things happening.
I personally like Decartes' theory because it explains why sometimes we might question how real are the events that occurred in our dreams. The activities, themselves, are possibilities of things that can be true, and maybe the person had fashioned that image in their mind at an earlier time. At this point the image earlier thought about has come back and it is now placed in a scene in one's dream which makes all the surrounding seem to be as real as other events. With that said Descarte had a point in saying your senses can deceive you. If one's dream was to display trauma and his/her sense of touch, taste and smell are lead him/her to think this is real, why should that person not in return question (when he/she believe he/she has woken up) am I still in a dream or is this reality?
The thought of going through each day trying to figure out are the events taking place part of what I've been calling reality or not seems to be quite nerve racking. Furthermore, if one cannot trust his'/her reality, what is to be considered true about things? Are people to just doubt everything and believe nothing?

Descartes' meditations and stupid blogs

This is my second post of the day because the first time I tried to blog, the internet dropped and it didn't save, thus the stupid blog title. Now, Descartes' doubt brings me to question whether this was somehow my fault. According to Descartes I am imperfect as opposed to god, and can make mistakes. This assumes I believe every word Descartes says and I don't, so I don't think this was my fault.

I think...sometimes...

I am not sure that I am totally on board with Descartes conclusion that we only exist if we are thinking. I do believe that in almost all things in life we have choices and decisions to make, therefore we are thinking. But then I was thinking about an infant and how it survives and makes it to an age where they can think for themselves. Do they survive off of the thoughts of others until they are old enough to do so own their own. Or does nature provide us the correct foundation. A new born does not have to be told that they need food or water to survive. That is existing in my view, however the child does not need to think about this, they just know, as we all do. My realization is that the mind, or soul, or "I" and the body are connected. Their is not one without the other, at least for our time on earth. To exist we must think, but we also must rely on our instinct and the tools nature has provided us with. It is not one thing that leads us to existing and surviving in this world, but rather all things. It is our mind and our body, our thoughts and our senses, our passions and our needs.

Descartes Meditations

In class this week we discussed Descartes’ meditations. First we talked about how Descartes describes the matter and mind He states that matter can be thought of as an extension in space while the mind is thought. Then we discussed Descartes’ use of methodological doubt. He uses this method to doubt the testimony of senses. Descartes has six meditations but in Fridays class we only focuses on the first two. Descartes first meditation calls the senses into doubt. He states the senses deceive humans through perspective, madness and dreams. For example, perspective deceives humans by making things look different from far away and up close. Descartes states that we could all be living a dream and just not be aware of it. He also says that the idea that God is being brings back the idea of existence. Descartes’ Second meditation is the idea that the only “I” that exists is the human soul, and not the body. He says that the soul is the only thing that is doubted. After analyzing Descartes thoughts I came to the conclusion that our ability to doubt is the only true proof that we legitimately exist.

descartes

I understand in a way why Descartes believes that God is real, but you can't say you know god is real for certain reasons that aren't concrete proof. We just don't know if he's real or not. And I don't agree with Descartes to doubt the senses. The senses are what help us understand the world and learn from it. And if god is the great deceiver, how can we be sure anything is real? This could all be a trick by God. We truly know nothing.

Existence: Exclusive to the mind

Descartes says that we think therefore we are. Because we are able to ponder the idea of our own existence or anything for that matter proves that we exist. If I were non existent then there would be no thought. Does this mean that the only thing that exists with any certainty is the mind, and outside of the mind there is only doubt? With no grasp on what, other than self, is real then why bother with rules, regulations, and expectations. If nothing is real for certain then there are no consequences for the things that one does because those things which were done may not have been done at all, or may have been done to non existent things... therefore it yields no consequences. For example: When Dr Layne experiences sleep paralysis she is ,in her head, screaming at her husband to wake up when in reality she has not moved. Her mind made her think that she was yelling but when she awoke she hadn't been, therefore there was no consequence for her action.

descartes' mind/body dualism

I personally am not a fan of Descartes' assumptions and conclusions about God being a demonic, and deceiving creator. I believe his value of logic and the dualism of the mind and body to be sensible, but to doubt all senses and to then conclude that God uses us as creatures to be tricked and toiled with is simply arrogant. It seems that he esteems the mind, but sees the body as a product of evil, and is used only to deceive our minds. It is true that we, as human beings are essentially minds, in that our soul constitutes who we are as individuals, but we are human because of our bodies. Therefore, although our minds and bodies are two separate entities, humans are a harmonic combination of body and mind. In contrast to Descartes' belief, we indeed are our minds, but we are also our bodies, "and God said that it was good."

Thinking is Sensing

Descartes' philosophy that we cannot trust our senses made me think. If we cant trust our senses, how can we trust that what feels or looks real is real? If he says "I think, therefore I am." Arent our thoughts developed by what we sense is important or real? Since we can't trust our senses, how can we trust the thoughts that derive from them? I feel that Descartes' metaphysics lead to the conclusion that we cannot be sure of anything that he is sure of. One cannot be certain that they exist without it leading back to the senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch. To know what something mean, one must have prior experience that teaches them the difference. That experience has to utilize the senses. Based on Descartes' classification of the senses as unreliable, one cannot truly know anything.

Descartes/Dreams

Descartes had a firm believe that, " I think therefore I am," this one statement can be interpreted to mean many things. For example if I think that my hair is blonde ( definately not) then my hair is blonde. I feel that it is all on how people want to interpret different things. Just like a dream if you tell yourself your dreaming then why can't you be dreaming. It is like we are all programmed to "know" what a dream is and what it really means to be awake. Just think though, what if our supposed dreams were real and that it could actually do what everything that happens in your dreams. The topic of controlling our dreams was brought up and if a person is able to control their dreams then it must be just our minds giving us images of what was in our minds. Descartes theory is not supposed to be taken literally, but it is all about how someone wants to perceive the idea of what a certain one thing is.

Daydreams

We have been discussing the mind/body problem and dreams in class lately. Yesterday I experienced something that I never have before- I literally day dreamed. Yes, my mind has wandered off in class or in church before, but I would usually be controlling my thoughts. This time, it was like I was in a dream, only I was awake. I don't know how long I was "dreaming" or why this was happening while I was awake.

But then I thought about if I was dreaming, or was my reality my dreams? You know that saying "Live your dreams?" Well, what if we are. In Inception, they go inside dreams of dreams, and Leonardo DiCaprio had a spinning piece that would only remain spinning in a dream. If it didn't, it was the only way he could differ from reality.

Am I missing something?

Descartes says we cannot trust our senses. I understand that our senses are not always right, but if everyone’s senses were wrong, how would we ever know that our senses failed us in the first place--how would we know that we could not trust our senses? Sure we sometimes think we see things that aren’t really there, but afterward we are able to figure out that these things were not real. Through some combination of senses and logic, we get a pretty good picture of the world in our brains.

And if our senses are so flawed, and we can only know our sensory perceptions as they are translated in our brains, how is it that thoughts may serve to prove existence? Our senses are processed in the brain, and our thoughts are a result of our brain, so why is it that we trust our brains on one account but not the other?

If there were a “malin génie” pumping falsities into our heads, why would he even allow us to think he might exist? It would be illogical for someone who wants to control all of our thoughts to allow us to know we’re being controlled.

I don’t think there is any way for Descartes to be certain that we must doubt our senses or our daily lives. In fact, I also don’t think Descartes has any way to be certain about anything he claims. What does he argue makes him capable of certainty in his thoughts? God’s existence. And how does he know God exists? Because he is certain of it.

Unless I’m missing something, Descartes’ argument would seem a lot better to me if his premises were stronger.

Phantom Pains

While talking in class about the 1st meditation, I thought about phantom pains. It shows that we cannot trust our senses. When an amputee suddenly feels pain in his long-lost leg, or when he gets the feeling of 'telescoping' (when an amputee feels that his amputated limb is gradually shortening), his phantom pains are confusing him. Biolgically, this makes sense; the limb is gone, but the nerves still exist.

Things like phantom pains show how much our senses deceive us. Basic principles are called into doubt and our senses, even though that is all we are used to, should not be trusted.

In this analogy, we should be freed from our sense of pain, which is simply a 'preconceived notion' in order to "lead our mind away from the senses".

God, Why Did You Do that?

With all the talk about whether or not God exists, I have been thinking. If he/she/it is real then why is there war? Why are there mentally/physically challenged people? The existence of something above us is quite mindblowing. It does call into question on whether God is a person, whether he/she/it is with or without human qualities, is there a beard or sandals, and many more just like in class. I just thought I would bring up the fact that there are imperfect people in the world. They bring up another question. If God made us in his/her/its image, why then are there people who are handicapped or power hungry and what does it say about God's image?

Descartes

Descartes siad "I think therefore I exist." After thinking about what Descarte said in more detail I realized that it has to be true. If one thinks, how can they not exist? But then I got to thinking, is it possible that I am the only one who exists. Descarte also called God the great deciever. Could it be possible that ones whole lifetime could be a dream, and that in reality they are the only one who actually thinks and exists. I guess you really never know, but it is scary to think about.

The Cart Before the Horse

Researching Descartes, I came across this lovely cartoon that was published in the London Times a few years back. With my little knowledge of the French language for quite some time that this person's name was pronounced phonetically until I heard his name pronounced "de-cart." And now that I have this knowledge, it makes this comic all the more funny.

Thinking of this now from a philosophical standpoint, having a little basis of understanding of Descartes' philosophy, this brings up some interesting points. Since Descartes is "a thinking thing" he cannot therefore be a cart which can never be a thinking thing. With that in mind, do carts exist or are they figments of our imagination? In other words, are carts things that are external to our mind or internal to our mind?

Dreams

I was very intrigued by the idea that every thing that we know as real could just be a dream. I've had many dreams where I thought it was real life and once I woke up I would have to literally convince myself that what happened in my dream did not really happen. So sometimes yes it does seem possible that life could just be one big dream and then that the dreams we have when we are sleeping are just a dream with in a dream. This could also imply that maybe our dreams are the only ways to tell that our own surroundings are just a more realistic dream. Or maybe our dreams are just another look at a different form of lifestyle that we just aren't living yet. Either way the idea of our lives just being one big dream did make me think and doubt my own reality, just as Descartes did.

Class Synopsis from Friday February 25

Olivia Tucker

Intro to Philosophy

Class Synopsis Paper

2/27/11

On Friday February 25, 2011 we discussed Descartes’ meditations. First we reviewed the primary ways to describe matter and mind. Matter can be described as an extension in space while mind is thought. Then we went straight into Decartes’ use of methodological doubt. He uses this method to systematically doubt the testimony of senses. Descartes has six meditations but in this class we only focuses on the first two. In the first meditation Descartes calls the senses into doubt. He claims the senses deceive humans through perspective, madness and dreams. Perspective deceives humans by making things look different from far away and up close. Madness can make someone’s senses no longer authentic. If someone is mad then they are away from reality and their senses cannot be trusted. Dreams can trick people into believing that what is going on in their dreams are real when in fact it is not real at all, this is deception. Since dreams do deceive humans this way Descartes says that we could all be living a dream and just not be aware of it. Descartes also brings up the idea that God is a malicious being that is only playing a game with our existence, that everything around us is not real. Second meditation is Descartes’ idea that the only “I” that exists is the human soul, not the body. The human soul is the only thing that cannot be doubted. Our ability to doubt and think is the only proof that we do legitimately exist. The fact that humans are aware of their existence proves their existence. There are also seven modes of thinking: doubting, understanding, affirmation, denial, will (desire), imagining and sensing.

doubt

The discussion from last class about doubt was very interesting. I have always doubted things but never thought about doubt in itself. I think that Descartes had a very interesting view on doubt and agree with a lot of what he had to say. I especially liked his opinion of what can be called into doubt. Descartes said that senses, madness, and dreams can all be called into doubt.

God

Everyone has the questions "Who is God?" "What is God?", however can we really ask these questions. From studying philosophy we have come across that God is not a body. God has no shape or form. God is not a place. So can we really ask who is God if it does not have a body. And can we ask what is God when he is not a place. This whole talk has really made me look at God from a totally different perspective. It makes me think more how did God come about and how was he started. There are just endless questions to this subject and plenty more discoveries.

Mardi Gras and Epicureanism

Today as I was watching the mardi gras parade, I realized just how excessive Mardi Gras is. Don't get me wrong, I love the floats and the knick nacks and the costumes. But when I see people fighting each other for play toys, it makes me question the necessity of it all. My questioning of excess brought the philosophy Epicureanism to mind. Epicurus believed that though we should seek pleasure, we should never indulge in excess. In a world of complete and utter excess, we rarely think to ask ourselves if this or that is necessary. The throwing and catching of beads for example are completely unnecesary acts. But since we all desire possessing copious amounts of plastic jewelry, we not only want to catch beads, we feel that we need to catch beads. But Epicurus would warn us that pleasure due to excess will only result in an unhappy life. For the happiest man enjoys not material pleasures, but intellectual pleasures.

Search

when discussing Descartes we came across the idea of being a figment of someone else's imagination. It was said that you would realize your existence to really be a part of something greater than yourself. With out devoting fully to the truth we would never know thus we would be slave's to someone else's mind. On the other hand, if we search for our own existence and realize that we are merely a mental projection, and upon this realization we disappear would it be better to just chill?Is the search for the truth promising or rather can we be agents of our destruction. It is possible that the truth could be grossly horrible, but the fun is definitely in searching.

Context, Context and context!

I like Decartes. I don't like what he says. I think his arguments are pretty awful. But I respect the man.
Why?
Because he was one of the first! He's considered the father modern philosophy because he started to use rationalism. Rationalism at the time of the Galileo.
We all know what happened to Galileo. He went again the teaching of the church and he suffered the consequences. Going against the church is something Descartes was all to aware of which is probably why he puts some of his questionable things into his writing. To pay a little lip service and keep the big man upstairs happy.
The thing that can make philosophy more interesting is context! Why did these dead white bros write what they wrote?

what if...?

Descartes says that we are supposed to be rational beings, that we have to disconnect ourselves from our senses. I have tried to do that this week but it is harder than it seems. I have come to realize that we are very reliant on our senses for absolutely everything. We have become reliant and know only what we hear, see, feel, touch or smell; the worst part is that we accept it. We accept that our senses are right but what if they are not? What if what Descartes says is true? That God is just a great deceiver that he is tricking us into feeling, smelling, touching, or seeing. I honestly don’t know how that would affect everything what if something was just a big lie?

2/25 Class Synopsis

We began class discussing Rene Descartes’ preface to his Meditations on Philosophy. Descartes states that through his previous work, Discourse on the method of rightly conducting reason and seeking the truth in sciences, he sought to find those points which should further be elaborated on. The first objection he will respond to is that the human mind is merely a thinking thing. Descartes will also respond to the objection that, “from the fact that I have within me the idea of a thing more perfect than myself, it does not follow that the idea is more perfect than me, still less that what is represented by the idea that exists”. Finally, concerning atheists, he states responding to their objections is a waste of time.

To sum up the points that were made in each of the six meditations we were given a synopsis. Regarding the first meditation, the meditator states that he must doubt all things he has previously believed. However, this is not a doubt merely to doubt, but rather a necessary tool to find something that is unquestionable to begin true knowledge. The second meditation leads the meditator to realize that through doubt he has found that the mind is a thinking thing. By being aware that it is questioning itself, it is proven to be real more or less. The argument for the existence of God, both ontologically and cosmologically, is found in the third meditation. The criteria for the truth is stated in the fourth meditation, specifically, those facts that can be doubted cannot be the grounds for any knowledge. An explanation of corporeal nature is given, as well as, another cosmological argument proving God’s existence lies within the fifth meditation. Finally, the sixth meditation contains the differentiation between intellect and imagination is given.

To further elaborate upon the first meditation, the meditator questions specifically what it is that can be called into doubt. Rather than every belief, it is beneficial to doubt to basic principles which will in turn destroy the foundations of all previously held beliefs. Additionally, the meditator reveals the senses must be doubted also. In terms of perspective they can be deceiving; a large tree may appear to be small from a distance thus misleading the mind. Lastly, the simple and general things must be called into question. In dreams images of things are manifested yet the dream world is one that is different from reality. Therefore, those objects such as color and space too must be distrusted. Descartes goes on to question God, eventually concluding that he may be a demon of sorts. If it God is to believed as omnipotent, then God can control the senses, and simple things. If this is the case what stops God from constantly deceiving the meditator, in fact he must be a demon who seeks to constantly deceive and place doubt within the meditator.

The Matrix was briefly analyzed to identify its philosophical parallels. The man ideas question what it is the truth, what do we think we know, and how we can free ourselves. The film was compared to the allegory of the cave, in that like those chained while in the matrix you will never live to your full potential. The utterly lost Neo is very similar to the meditator of the meditations in that Morpheus makes him question everything he has thought true. Essentially, The Matrix reinforces the point that our mind is indeed separate from the body.

Class was concluded by elaborating on the points of the second meditation. The dualism of the human mind is introduced in this section. More importantly, the meditator finds something that cannot be questioned; the mind is a thinking thing. It is irrelevant is God is a demon who seeks to deceive; because there is no question that the meditator is aware of his doubting. Thus the proposition “I think therefore I am” is put forward. Since the meditator thinks, he cannot doubt that he exists.

Don't think FEEL

"Don't think. FEEL. It's like a finger pointing at the moon.
Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of the heavenly glory!" Bruce Lee [Enter the Dragon 1973]

This movie quote was the FIRST thing that came into my mind during last week in class.

This quote made me think about how so many people today over think EVERYTHING. I myself tend to over think every single thing. What we [human kind] must realize, is that there is a difference between OVER THINKING and THINKING OVER everything. Humans tend to over think things, when we should be thinking over things. Bruce Lee's quote is so SIMPLE, yet so profound. Don't think about where it is, or how it is, for you will " miss all of the heavenly glory". It is so simple.

Everyday people are over thinking life, when we should be enjoying it (life). People are so caught up in troubles about religion and politics; but while we are all bickering, we are missing on the "heavenly glory" that is the world, galaxies, the universe.

We need to think over life, not over think it.

If we constantly over analyze things we will never go any where in life. If we simply think over life we will not miss it, life is beautiful and it is worth admiring for the sheer beauty.

IGNORANCE IS........Bliss?

A few weeks ago we were discussing Plato and Socrates and this quote has stuck with me ever since.

“You yourselves, surely, know that wrong action done without knowledge is done because of ignorance.” PLATO, Protagoras, 357d.

My wrong action most recently is assumption of knowledge. See, my wife is a high school band director and works well over 40 hours a week, some late nights and often on the weekend there is something she must attend to. Being married for over 13 years I have loved her will all I have. My heart, my soul, my pain, my wishes, me as I am figuring me out.

I assumed I knew why she shouldn’t be spending all those extra hours at school and could somehow find a better balance with her work and family obligations. I assumed I knew what it was like to take over a band program after turmoil and unrest. I assumed I knew what decisions she should be making for her which might better serve my wants and guess what, I was wrong.

I do not know what is better for anyone as I do not yet still know what is truly the best for me because it is ever changing. A fine balance between figuring oneself out, finding out what works and what doesn’t work. Please do not assume knowledge as I have. I think Descartes would agree by this point that challenging everything, all senses and truths would be a wise decision.

What do you think?

Wiping the slate clean

In Descartes’ Meditation number 2 he talks about wiping the slate clean, clearing all preconceived ideas, senses and the like to start from the new. At first I thought of the idea as preposterous but later I was reminded of a dear friend of mine in Arizona, Judith. She was a practicing Buddhist and lived a very simple life, had modest things and loved talking to her animals and plants. Again at first I thought this was preposterous and quite ridiculous but such a different action and approach to life then I have ever witnessed with my own senses, it was like I had no choice but the think on her terms. I had to come up with a reason why. So, I bought a buddhist monk meditation CD, listened to it often, and from that point forward tried to live simply, simpler.

After a while I found myself less stressed, more one with the world if you will. This was approximately 15 years ago and somehow I have slipped back into the norm of things for the most part. I have become less a tuned to my natural needs and wishes and have again bought into the societal must haves of the nice car, the big house, the diamond ring, I hope my wife does find this on my computer, but think about it realistically. What do we need as human beings to really live, to really think as a species?

Who is willing to wipe the slate clean both to challenge yourself philosophically but also to see what you are really made up of, what makes YOU, you? I only need food, water and shelter to survive. EVERY other item/possession I own is extra and damn it is simply too much.

This might be too much for Intro to Philosophy but it is MY reality. I am living in a world where things are taking over my senses. I have now made the decision to start clearing the clutter and wiping the slate clean..........

Enter the World of the Dream

During Friday’s class, Dr. Layne covered Descartes’ First Meditation. I found Descartes’ philosophy that the senses constantly deceive us about the nature of reality quite fascinating; especially when applied to the world of the dream. His argument makes perfect sense when one realizes that even in dreams there is an eerie likeness of real things (e.g. the world, space, color, and math). In order to show that science rested on foundations that lay in the mind and not the senses, Descartes began by asserting the importance of doubt; the foundation of knowing. I found Descartes’ claim extremely relatable (more so than “The Matrix”) to Christopher Nolan's movie “Inception” which deals with the fictional science of shared dreaming. The characters enter others' minds, to steal ideas, or plant them while the target is unaware they are dreaming. In the movie, characters can distinguish a dream from reality by using totems. In the end, the film leaves open the question of whether the protagonist (Cobb) is himself dreaming. The entire point of the architect character (Ariadne) is to meticulously design a world to deceive the subject’s ability to distinguish what’s real and what is not. "Inception" conveys Descartian philosophy.

Cause and Effect

An inductive argument draws from a general conclusion, and essentially poses a cause and effect like response. For instance, if you only have seen white swans, you would assume all swans are white. If you walk into a room and hit the light switch and the light comes on, then obviously the two are connected. Much like Hume, I would argue that cause and effect isn't necessarily the answer - but rather based off of habit.

For instance, when Pavlov did the bell experiment with the dogs (when you rang the bell, the dogs would come because they knew that there would be food) it was simply the idea of training the mind to think that when you hear a bell, food must be near. If you rang a bell at a passing dog, it may not do anything besides just stare at you blankly. But, for instance, if you trained a dog to run when a bell rang, the dog would run.

Essentially, Pavlov's experiment, and Hume's argument both supply amble amount of reason to believe that cause and effect aren't solely inherent, but rather based off of experience, and a sense of "training" your brain to understand something.

What is God; Via Negativa

I find the concept of via negatativa to be unusual. The definition of anything cannot be what it is not or it is in fact not a definition. To define something it must be clearly outlined. To say that we only know what God is not is not knowing what God is. And furthermore, how are we certain of what God is not? Is there some sort of proof for the notion that God is simple rather than complex? Are these not merely the speculations of men? Via Negative is not a solid argument for proveing exactly what God is.

Corporeal?

For me, I always put God in some kind of form or figure. Not necessarily to make God corporeal, but just so I can feel as though I am relating to something tangible. It is hard to think of God via negative sometimes. People have always put God into some category (if that makes since). For example, saying or writing “he” when referring to God specifics God is a male. If God is not corporeal how can we classify God has “he”. That would be insinuating gender and insinuating God being body. The next question that would probably be raised would be referring to God as the father. In our society males are fathers. It is so hard sometimes to know God is not corporeal, but yet we still refer to God in some bodily image.

via negativa

I find very interesting Aquinas's theory of via negativa and how he describe sGod by describing what he is not. We cannot use our senses to describe him, so i found very clever the way he proposed to describe him with something we know and also know is not him.

Valeria

God Is Existence

I think that a priori approach to God is a little off track. We have talked about a priori knowledge in International Relations. The professor explained it as ‘assuming there are some things you can’t prove, and you patterned a behavior un-provable; believed to be true’. If you use that definition, you are saying that you can’t prove God’s existence. I feel like God can be proved to humans. We think about God on a daily basis, and many great thinkers throughout history have made reasonable and educated reasons as to why God exists.

Personally, I like the idea of God is existence. I believe in God, and the thought of God being existence makes me feel much better than thinking of him as a big guy on a throne in Heaven. God being existence makes sense to me when you think of the world. Everything exists and most people can’t fathom something creating it all. I think people might can handle existence creating existence better than God creating everything.

When reading Descartes' meditation, the first discusses his doubts. When Descartes talks about his doubts of human senses, I sat back and thought about it. While pondering this idea, I concluded I felt the same doubt at times. While riding home one night earlier this week, the moon was bright, full, and what appeared to be close to the earth. My sisters' first response were, "Look at the moon! Almost seems like we can jump off the roof and hang on.". This reminded me of the meditations. While looking at the moon, one could even make out figures that appeared to be craters. However, everyone knows that the moon is considerably far out of reach. So how is it that it appears so close? I'm sure there is a scientific answer to that question, however, the sense of sight has nonetheless deceived me.

My sight was not the only senses that has deceived me this week, but my hearing also. While on my job, I was continuously deceived by my hearing. My mom has always told me there was a problem with my hearing but I have to side with Descartes again. I repeatedly thought I heard my manager and shift leader calling me. I'm sure everybody can also relate to thinking you heard your phone alerting you of a text message but to no avail. This phenomena kept me going into my pockets for my phone throughout my shift.

Descartes has a point with doubt. Doubting your senses can be easy when one has the aforementioned occurrences.