Descartes Vs Hume
Descartes writes that as we were created in God’s image, we are “something intermediate between God and nothingness, or between supreme being and non-being” (38). As Descartes states that we are imperfect beings, we will undoubtedly have defects (37). These defects reside in our faculty of knowledge, our intellect, and the faculty of choice, our will (39). The intellect allows us to perceive and understand ideas and the will simply consisting of the ability to affirm, deny, pursue or avoid a choice (39). Believing that the source of human error was due to the varying scope of our will and intellect, Descartes explains how as God’s intellect is infinite, he can always will what is “Good” due to knowing everything (39).
Furthermore, if God were ethically flawless, then unquestionably God would want to do something about all the evil and suffering. But, yet there are still countless instances of evil that fills our world. Concluding, since God does not prevent or eliminate all unnecessary suffering, logically, God does not exist. Hume concludes that if you want to make sense of all the evil randomness of the universe with the sense of God’s attributes, “You must prove these pure, unmixed, and uncontrollable attributes from the present mixed and confused phenomena, and from these alone. A hopeful undertaking!”
He states that Saint Anselm’s argument is impossible for the mind to grasp, and that imaging up anything to perfection can be done on anything, and the example he used was a tropical island. Saint Anselm counter argues back at Gaunilon that there is no perfect definition of what a tropical island could be unlike God. God does have a perfect definition and is not imagined as lacking any perfection. In God’s perfection he must exist in reality and not just in the mind in order to be the most perfect of all. This topic is a bit over my head for the fact that I never though this complex before about God.
In the story “Eleven” the main character Rachel is acting like an immature child. There are many examples of her emotions coming out of her in a childlike way. One example is when she begins to give excuses for certain behaviors and relates them to younger ages like it is ok to act like a kid. Using comparisons like “Or maybe some days you might need to sit on your mama’s lap because you’re scared, and that’s the part of you that’s five” shows how she would prefer to act childlike and not grow up and act more like a tween.
However, Descartes is indeed certain of the fact that he is a thinking being, and that he exists. As a result of this argument, Descartes makes a conclusion that the things he perceives clearly and distinctly cannot be false, and are therefore true (Blanchette). This clear and distinct perception is an important component to the argument that Descartes makes in his fifth meditation for the existence of God. This paper explains Descartes ' proof of God 's existence from Descartes ' fifth meditation, Pierre Gassendi 's objection to this proof, and then offers the paper 's author 's opinion on both the proof and objection.
Second, there develops an extraordinary confidence in humanity's capacity to know and even to master nature, society, and the self. Third, the problems of politics are not simply to be mitigated, but they are to be permanently solved. Fourth, the autonomous individual, rather than society, is assumed to be the starting point for constructing a political system that would provide the grounds for legitimating and justifying a political system. First, the new science provides an essential break with the medieval world.
Anselm’s argument is based on the assumption of the universal definition of God being the greatest being. Descartes’ argument is based on the assumption that all humans have an idea of infinite perfection. They both do not take into account the fact that some people may have differing thoughts. Another way they are alike is that they are both based on logical evidence instead of physical evidence. Anselm’s argument focuses on the definition and the logic behind it while Descartes’ argument focuses on self-reason for the cause of the idea of infinite perfection.
When addressing what Descartes believes to be the fundamental source of human error it is first important to clarify what Descartes insists is not the source of human error. Right at the start of his fourth meditation Descartes specifies that God cannot be the source of error since that would require deception. Since deception is a form of imperfection God cannot deceive us for he is perfect (AT 53). Since God is not the source of error, and all of our abilities are given to us by God who cannot deceive us then our ability to make judgement also cannot be the source of error when used properly (AT 54). This means that since it cannot be God or the faculties given to us by God as the source of error, then it must be something within us, something related to our finite nature, distinct
Descartes expounds upon the concept of error and its correlation to free will among humans and to the entity God in one of his passages, “Fourth Meditation.” He has proclaimed the existence of God in his previous meditation and further questions the perfection of humans and the issue with error. Humans, as the creation of God, should not be committing mistakes due to the claim that God is an all-perfect being and is not a deceiver. However, Descartes understands that humans are prone to error despite having an infinite will that would supposedly prevent them from doing any wrong. The philosopher therefore proclaims that error is a result from humans who attempt to utilize their knowledge and will simultaneously, which will result in mistakes.
We know clear and distinct perceptions independently by God, and his existence provides us with a certainty we might not possess otherwise. However, another possible strategy would be to change Gods role in Descartes philosophy. Instead of seeing God as the validation of clear and distinct perceptions, rather see him as a safeguard against doubt. This strategy, however, is a problem since it re-constructs the Meditations – Philosophical work of Descartes –.This is because it would not be God, who is the ultimate foundation of knowledge, but the clear and distinct
Hume’s response to this is through is character Philo, Philo said that we should not judge the attributes of god on something like Paley proposes. Philo argues that we cannot judge the entirety of the universe on one single part of nature because nature has an infinite number of springs of principle. Also that we cannot base God on our
According to Descartes, the only thing we can be certain of is that fact that we think, and with the ability to think, he has the knowledge of God’s existence and therefore the realization that material objects exist (Moore, Bruder 99). Descartes uses the example of the wax to demonstrate how the mind and our thoughts are more reliable than our body and senses. He argues that when the wax is both in liquid and state form, the qualities we perceive by our senses are different in both states, but by using our mind and judgment, it is still the same wax (Skirry). This indicates that the senses are not enough to understand everything around us because what we can be certain of is what is in our minds. Therefore, Descartes would assume that using
In other words, Anselm stipulates that God must exist since we can’t think of something greater than God but Descartes says the main reason why God exists is because he is a perfect being. St. Anselm and Descartes arguments are without doubt the most important arguments to the existence of God. They formed the basis for further discussion both by those that agree to these schools of thought as well as those that saw the arguments as weak and decided to show why. Both philosophers agreed that the comprehension of the concept of God was sufficient for anyone to believe in the existence of God even though Anselm argument was skewed towards our inability to conceive a more powerful being while Descartes mainly concentrates on the perfect nature in
Logically speaking, Hume’s theory makes the most sense due to the knowledge learned from cause and effect. I understand the relationship between the beginning to its adjacent cause and it applies to everyday life in society. Unlike Hume, Descartes suggests the origin of knowledge is logical and through self-doubt. Yet, he is unable to provide proof of the existence of god despite playing a substantial role in his theory.
PAPER #2 History of philosophy: Philosophy 20B Thomas Aquinas reasons that “God is one” in the Summa theologiae, part one, question eleven, article three. Using three proofs, one on “Gods simplicity,” the second on “the infinity of Gods perfection” and the last based on “the unity of the world.” The following will be Dissecting and providing explanations along with criticism. As well, what it is meant by “God is one”.
More about Descartes Vs Hume
Descartes 'Argument From Past Failure'
1301 Words | 6 PagesAnalysis Of George Nagel's Argument Against The Existence Of God
1121 Words | 5 PagesAnalysis Of Saint Anselm's Ontological Argument
513 Words | 3 PagesRachel's Short Story 'Eleven'
309 Words | 2 PagesAn Analysis Of René Descartes Mediations On First Philosophy
1654 Words | 7 PagesDescartes And Hobbes: A Comparative Analysis
1710 Words | 7 PagesPlato's Views On The Allegory Of The Cave
1377 Words | 6 PagesDescartes: Fundamental Source Of Human Error
582 Words | 3 PagesDescartes Fourth Meditation Analysis
699 Words | 3 PagesDescartes Non Deceive God Analysis
726 Words | 3 PagesDescartes And Paley's Argument Analysis
925 Words | 4 PagesPros And Cons Of Rene Descartes
248 Words | 1 PagesAnselm Vs Descartes Ontological Argument
945 Words | 4 PagesCompare And Contrast Descartes And Hume
1404 Words | 6 PagesThomas Aquinas Proof Of God Essay
1178 Words | 5 Pages