Cotigo Ergo Sum?

[Charlemagne_III]

Pascal early on in *Pensées *repudiated Descartes’ fatal error, which inadvertently assisted the rise of modern atheism. Descartes had defended the existence of God, but had made of God an elusive entity that could be proven to be knowable in the abstract, rather than the God Pascal experienced, a “God of love and consolation.” For this reason Pascal viewed Descartes’ God as “useless and uncertain…. I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would have been quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him give a fillip to set the world in motion; beyond this he has no further need of God.” Pascal could well understand why the radical thinkers of his day, who believed they could punch holes in the traditional proofs for God, could also find God useless if He was to be viewed as little more than a Prime Mover. Indeed, why would one even desire to believe in such a merely mechanical God?

For Pascal God is known intuitively, not as an abstract entity. God’s existence is axiomatic, not deductive. Aquinas knew this as well. Which is why his five proof must have seemed to him at the end so much “straw.” The living God can only be known through the reasons of the heart, rather than the reasons of the head. And that is why Pascal’s wager argument is so much more effective an argument to use against atheism than the cosmological or the teleological arguments could ever be.

 

[Thomas_White]

Pascal early on in *Pensées *repudiated Descartes’ fatal error, which inadvertently assisted the rise of modern atheism. Descartes had defended the existence of God, but had made of God an elusive entity that could be proven to be knowable in the abstract, rather than the God Pascal experienced, a “God of love and consolation.” For this reason Pascal viewed Descartes’ God as “useless and uncertain…. I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would have been quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him give a fillip to set the world in motion; beyond this he has no further need of God.” Pascal could well understand why the radical thinkers of his day, who believed they could punch holes in the traditional proofs for God, could also find God useless if He was to be viewed as little more than a Prime Mover. Indeed, why would one even desire to believe in such a merely mechanical God?

For Pascal God is known intuitively, not as an abstract entity. God’s existence is axiomatic, not deductive. Aquinas knew this as well. Which is why his five proof must have seemed to him at the end so much “straw.” The living God can only be known through the reasons of the heart, rather than the reasons of the head. And that is why Pascal’s wager argument is so much more effective an argument to use against atheism than the cosmological or the teleological arguments could ever be.

Indeed.

 

[thinkandmull]

Of course not. The point is not that Descartes was an existentialist but rather that as the so-called first modern man he is the harbinger of what will be a paradigm shift in philosophy, so to speak, that will only in four-hundred years result in Sartre’s existentialism.

There is the history of philosophy, and this development did occur. But it would only occur during the course of centuries. Following Descartes, the concept of immanence, as defined as man’s ability to know God through reason (objectively), is no longer a serious philosophical consideration.

Descarte DID try to prove God’s existence objectively.

 

[thinkandmull]

Pascal early on in *Pensées *repudiated Descartes’ fatal error, which inadvertently assisted the rise of modern atheism. Descartes had defended the existence of God, but had made of God an elusive entity that could be proven to be knowable in the abstract, rather than the God Pascal experienced, a “God of love and consolation.” For this reason Pascal viewed Descartes’ God as “useless and uncertain…. I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would have been quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him give a fillip to set the world in motion; beyond this he has no further need of God.” Pascal could well understand why the radical thinkers of his day, who believed they could punch holes in the traditional proofs for God, could also find God useless if He was to be viewed as little more than a Prime Mover. Indeed, why would one even desire to believe in such a merely mechanical God?

For Pascal God is known intuitively, not as an abstract entity. God’s existence is axiomatic, not deductive. Aquinas knew this as well. Which is why his five proof must have seemed to him at the end so much “straw.” The living God can only be known through the reasons of the heart, rather than the reasons of the head. And that is why Pascal’s wager argument is so much more effective an argument to use against atheism than the cosmological or the teleological arguments could ever be.

You are accepting Pascalian rejection of the Five Ways over Descartes substitution for them? Descartes too believed that in knowing God intuitively, and was not a Deist. He moved to a new home frequently, and always close to a Catholic Church. As a philosopher, he did not get into spirituality like Aquinas did but that doesn’t make him a bad guy. Dietrich Von Hildebrand said once that there is nothing anti-Catholic is Descartes

 

[thinkandmull]

Without a demonstration, I grant you. But do you, thinkandmull, have any experience of innate ideas?

Actually I believe from personal experiences I remember from my youth that there are innate ideas. At least you have to admit that mothers have natural knowledge of how to raise babies, and children have, for example, a natural idea to hide when in danger

 

[lmelahn]

Actually I believe from personal experiences I remember from my youth that there are innate ideas. At least you have to admit that mothers have natural knowledge of how to raise babies, and children have, for example, a natural idea to hide when in danger

You don’t need to reveal anything personal if you don’t want to, but would you mind sharing one of those innate ideas?

I should point out, however, that the sort of thing that you are mentioning is not exactly what Descartes meant by “idea.”

An “idea” for Descartes is a concept or notion. Both of the examples you gave are behaviors. In human beings, they doubtless involve using concepts or notions (“ideas”), but the behaviors are not identical with the ideas—they are our reaction to those ideas.

I actually think (in both examples) that it easier to suppose that those ideas come from experience. How the human brain is configured to deal with those ideas is to some degree “hard wired” (e.g., maternal behavior, hiding from danger).

However, that is not what Descartes was referring to. He actually thought that, deep down inside, we have an innate idea of God, and that if we just paid close enough attention to it, we would become certain that He exists.

It is this kind of innate idea that I think is difficult to justify.

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t think the distinction you are making is as easy as you say.

Anyway, I remember somehow instinctively knowing what adults were talking about at times when I was young. Thinking back, I can’t see how I could have known those things.

The Thomistic idea that the world is contingent is an innate philosophical idea. You can’t prove its not necessary to someone who believes its necessary

 

[lmelahn]

I don’t think the distinction you are making is as easy as you say.

Anyway, I remember somehow instinctively knowing what adults were talking about at times when I was young. Thinking back, I can’t see how I could have known those things.

St. Thomas posits a habit of the first principles, that becomes active as soon as we begin to use our intellects. Might not this habit explain what you are referring to?

The Thomistic idea that the world is contingent is an innate philosophical idea. You can’t prove its not necessary to someone who believes its necessary

That it cannot be demonstrated is debatable, but let us leave that aside for the moment.

In order for it to be an innate idea, it would have to be something that everyone can agree on, just by looking in their interior (like Descartes’ idea of God). The very fact that people disagree about the contingency of the world means that it could not be an innate idea. (According to Descartes, it is the innate ideas that the clearest and most distinct: the cogito, the idea of God, and so on.)

 

[thinkandmull]

Not everybody realizes there interior ideas. If you don’t get the idea of contingency from inside, where do you get it? Your philosophical reason sees it in nature? Or innate? Are they different? Maybe we are quibbling over something that can be seen from different sides.

If there was a demonstration for either side, I think we would all know the syllogism by now

 

[lmelahn]

Not everybody realizes there interior ideas. If you don’t get the idea of contingency from inside, where do you get it? Your philosophical reason sees it in nature? Or innate? Are they different? Maybe we are quibbling over something that can be seen from different sides.

It can be seen by observing the world and its limitedness, and realizing that it must have come into existence.

If there was a demonstration for either side, I think we would all know the syllogism by now

I don’t agree. Plenty of things are true, but are rather difficult to demonstrate as true. Consider, say, advanced calculus or something like that. Probably most people are not familiar with it.

The contingency of the world is something like that.

 

[thinkandmull]

Calculus is demonstrable. Its math. Realizing that the world must have come into existence is philosophical. They are not the same thing.

I don’t see how it is possible that there is some far out there demonstration that there are no innate ideas

 

[thinkandmull]

On this thread’s topic, Aquinas says for example that “there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses”. Don’t we get ideas from our emotions? Descartes referring to willing feeling and reasoning as thought and people run to the conclusion that he is an idealist. We shouldn’t assume this, not that Aquinas didn’t believe we learn from emotions

 

[lmelahn]

On this thread’s topic, Aquinas says for example that “there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses”. Don’t we get ideas from our emotions?

Well, for one thing, our emotions are not altogether separate from our senses. For Aquinas, there are internal as well as external senses. The emotions are basically our internal reaction, as our appetites and tendencies are activated (whether for better or for worse). At the end of the day, we first have to know something, on some level (at least whether it is beneficial or harmful), before we can experience an emotional reaction towards it.

So, sure, we get information from our passions, but the very existence of the passions presupposes that something extrinsic is acting on us, in some way.

So, we could say, we know things through the mediation of our senses (both internal and external), which produce a sort of sensory knowledge in us (which is the basis for our intellectual knowledge, but not identical with it). Our passions, or emotions, arise in us based on that sensory knowledge.

Descartes referring to willing feeling and reasoning as thought and people run to the conclusion that he is an idealist. We shouldn’t assume this, not that Aquinas didn’t believe we learn from emotions

I agree that Descartes is not an idealist. Descartes believed in the “real” world; he just thought that we had to pass through the interior of our minds in order to get there.

And I agree that we can learn from our emotions, just that such knowledge still entails the use of our senses.