Comparing Descartes View In The City Of God

UID: 804954284

Normore, C

Phil 100B

16 March, 2018

Am I Descartes or Augustine? In this paper, I will explain and compare Descartes’ view in the Second Meditation and Augustine’s view in the City of God Book XI CH.26 regarding self-existence in order demonstrate their differences and similarities. On the one hand, In the Second Meditation, Descartes proves his own existence by disregarding his common beliefs about sensory perception that are open to skeptical doubts and only using the ability to engage in cognition. On the other hand, in the City of God, Augustine proves his own existence by appealing to God, the mind, and the ability to engage in cognition. By making an insightful comparison of both views, Descartes view results to be more

the skeptics). Notice, the skeptic arguments that Augustine presents in opposition to his own existence concentrate on the idea of the impossibility of ‘nothingness’. Meaning that If it is the case that the skeptics suggest the possibility of being deceived about his existence, Augustine claims he would still exist. For it would be irrational to think that whomever is deceiving Augustine is deceiving a non-existent individual; meaning that the deceiver must be the deceiver of something— “for if I am deceived, I am”(12). Therefore, Augustine suggests that it is rational to claim certainty about his own existence, regardless if he is being deceived or not, due to the fact that he cannot be deceived about this awareness of his own existence. In like manner, Augustine seems to suggest that this is applicable in any instance in which there is a cognitive process undergoing. He proceeds to provide love and happiness as an example. On the one hand, Augustine suggests the idea of ‘love’—that having a desire to acquire more – towards his own existence and knowing that he exists creates a third component, namely his love. In this case, Augustine suggests that even if he is deceived into thinking that the things he loves are false, it would be irrational to say that his love is false (i.e. non-existent) as a result of the non-existing things. It is clear in this case that Augustine’s love is not interdependent with the things he loves, therefore, Augustin’s love exists independently from the non-existing things he loves. On the other hand, Augustine raises the example regarding happiness suggesting that “there is no one who does not wish to be happy” (22) for it is not possible to wish to be something if he is nothing. Namely, happiness needs to be the happiness of something, and it is irrational to say that happiness is the happiness of nothing. Overall, Augustine