"I think, therefore I Am."

  • Thread starter Thread starter slinky1882
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
adstrinity:
But, again, I didn’t think that it applied to all humans, just to Descarte’s who was rationalizing if he indeed was an entity at all (anybody who has ever questioned if they really are here does have a hard time concluding that they indeed are.) I don’t think that it was meant to determine who is human and who isn’t. …Is that what he was trying to do? Determine he was human?
You’ve described pretty much my understanding of what Descartes was trying to do: trying to find a method to prove that he exists.

On Godfriedus’ point, it does seem that the Culture of Death is built upon the **subjectivity **that is inherent in “I think, therefore I am.” Of course, the CoD wildly extrapolates this subjectivity into its motto: “I want to be, therefore I should be.”
 
40.png
slinky1882:
Is this famous line from Descartes “Discourse on Method” compatible with Catholic Tradition, yes or no??? And why??? :hmmm: Thanks (from a university student who is Catholic) and God Bless.
Looking at it from an uneducated standpoint this " I think, therefore I am" statement seems to be pointing to the individual being God. I have never heard of Discourse of Method. You do realize that the church probably has alot more uneducated people in it than educated. Myself included. I would suppose this means my post is unimportant. I just wanted to give my point of view since I did answer no in the poll. In the future may I ask to keep this in mind?🙂
 
40.png
MichaelLewis:
Descartes was not claiming to be God, if that is what you are implying. (Though in the Meditations, he did very briefly consider the possibility, and then rejected it.) Infact, Descartes overcame his skepticism only by concluding that there was a God who wouldn’t decieve his creation.
How did he consider it: “Hmmmm…maybe I’m god…maybe not…”?
lol…so, he wasn’t claiming it, but he did consider it??? okay…

SG
 
Seeks God:
How did he consider it: “Hmmmm…maybe I’m god…maybe not…”?
lol…so, he wasn’t claiming it, but he did consider it??? okay…

SG
Well, in context it isn’t as silly as it sounds. Descartes was just trying to be thorough and explore all possibilities. 🙂

(Though I do giggle when I remember my philosophy professor’s monotone quip: “So now we know that Descartes isn’t God.”)
 
40.png
MichaelLewis:
No, you were right the first time. He was just trying to determine that he existed. This has NOTHING to do with who is human or important. Descartes wanted to know what he could be absolutely certain of; that meant, for a while, not assuming that the world he observed was real. His method was doubt, he ended up ‘proving’ to himself that God and the external world were real, and that he could know that they were real and mind independent.
I think that is the exact problem: In order to exist YOU have to realize you exist??? JPII was simply stating that (I think…), God is aware of your existance and it is not necessary for an individual to be aware of their existance in relation to God, other than they should be aware of God’s existance.

I also agree that Descartes gives rise to the Culture of Death…
 
40.png
MichaelLewis:
Well, in context it isn’t as silly as it sounds. Descartes was just trying to be thorough and explore all possibilities. 🙂

(Though I do giggle when I remember my philosophy professor’s quip: “So now we know that Descartes isn’t God.”)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Seeks God:
I think that is the exact problem: In order to exist YOU have to realize you exist??? JPII was simply stating that (I think…), God is aware of your existance and it is not necessary for an individual to be aware of their existance in relation to God, other than they should be aware of God’s existance.

I also agree that Descartes gives rise to the Culture of Death…
No, you could exist whether you realize it or not, whether you think or not. But you can KNOW that you exist because you can’ t help but know that you think, and to suppose that you don’t exist is incoherent, for who is doing the supposing?
You have to understand, Descartes doubted EVERYTHING at the stage in the Meditations where he introduced this idea. He certainly hadn’t developed his proofs for God’s existence yet, which allowed him to believe in an external world.
 
40.png
MichaelLewis:
No, you could exist whether you realize it or not, whether you think or not.
That’s the point I was trying to make…I wasn’t very clear.
 
Seeks God:
That’s the point I was trying to make…I wasn’t very clear.
Well, how is it objectionable?
God is aware of your existance and it is not necessary for an individual to be aware of their existance in relation to God, other than they should be aware of God’s existance.
Necessary for what? How can you know God exists when you haven’t established that anything else does, including yourself? What did God create?

Descartes hadn’t established God’s existance yet. God was the foundation of most of his beliefs; in a sense it could be said that Descartes relies more on God than Aquinus, (as I understand Aquinus). Aquinus assumed the existence of the external world, didn’t he? Descartes held that we had to believe in God before we could have good reason to believe in it!
 
40.png
MichaelLewis:
Well, how is it objectionable?

Necessary for what? How can you know God exists when you haven’t established that anything else does, including yourself? What did God create?

Descartes hadn’t established God’s existance yet. God was the foundation of most of his beliefs; in a sense it could be said that Descartes relies more on God than Aquinus, (as I understand Aquinus). Aquinus assumed the existence of the external world, didn’t he? Descartes held that we had to believe in God before we could have good reason to believe in it!
That is the fundamental problem, a paradox, a mystery and ultimately a matter of faith. Realizing your existance before you realize God’s existance puts the human concept of time into the ‘equation’. God is outside of time and we are not; God’s consciousness exists regardless of our consciousness…
 
40.png
Mike_Olson:
Looking at it from an uneducated standpoint this " I think, therefore I am" statement seems to be pointing to the individual being God. I have never heard of Discourse of Method. You do realize that the church probably has alot more uneducated people in it than educated. Myself included. I would suppose this means my post is unimportant. I just wanted to give my point of view since I did answer no in the poll. In the future may I ask to keep this in mind?🙂
No, no. Your point of view is important and welcome, and I will try to keep in mind what you have said. Thanks and God Bless.
 
“You have to understand, Descartes doubted EVERYTHING at the stage in the Meditations where he introduced this idea. He certainly hadn’t developed his proofs for God’s existence yet, which allowed him to believe in an external world.”

I understand what Descartes was attempting in his philosophy. It was an intriguing method…but ultimately decadent. YOU have to know YOU exist before anything else? That is self-centered.

Consciousness exists in the soul. But you could be conscious of God without ever considering your own existence except THROUGH God.

Ultimately, we should primarily have faith in God and THAT should lead us to faith in our own existence, not the other way around.
 
I have always looked at that saying like this: because we have the ability to think, we must exist, because if we didn’t exist, then we couldn’t think. Existence comes before thinking, but thinking cannot occur without existence. So how is it incompatible with Catholic Tradition? It doesn’t refute God, it doesn’t place us above God. It is much like a scientific question and answer, for part B to occur, part A must be true (in this case, thinking is part B, existence is part A ). That’s always been my thought, but if I took the quote out of context I apologize.

Disclaimer: if Descartes was supposing his ability to created using thought, then my answer would change, but I don’t think that was his intent.

Eamon
 
batteddy said:
“You have to understand, Descartes doubted EVERYTHING at the stage in the Meditations where he introduced this idea. He certainly hadn’t developed his proofs for God’s existence yet, which allowed him to believe in an external world.”

I understand what Descartes was attempting in his philosophy. It was an intriguing method…but ultimately decadent. YOU have to know YOU exist before anything else? That is self-centered.

Consciousness exists in the soul. But you could be conscious of God without ever considering your own existence except THROUGH God.

Ultimately, we should primarily have faith in God and THAT should lead us to faith in our own existence, not the other way around.

Bingo! 👍
 
Seeks God:
That is the fundamental problem, a paradox, a mystery and ultimately a matter of faith. Realizing your existance before you realize God’s existance puts the human concept of time into the ‘equation’. God is outside of time and we are not; God’s consciousness exists regardless of our consciousness…
St. Thomas and St. Anselm both offered proofs for God’s existence, Anselm’s ontological proof was based purely upon human thought and reason. Thomas’s proofs were based partly upon experience. They both apparently thought it was worth while to give reasons to believe in God.

Descartes too thought it was worth while to have a reason to believe, not just in God, but in everything else. He made it quite clear from the onset that this was an experiment. He wanted to know with absolute certainty just what he could possibly know.

There is no question that Descartes thought God was in every sense prior to himself and all humans. Could explain just where you think Descartes went wrong? Do you hold that he was wrong to engage in such radical doubt to begin with? Do you hold that, having engaged in it and knowing nothing, he should have escaped via some other method? What method would you recommend? If you would employ God, just how would you conclude that he exists? You have no recourse to Thomas and Anselm’s proofs, for Anselm’s relies upon your mind and Thomas’s relies upon an external world AND your mind.

All Descartes was doing when he argued “I think therefore I am”, was pointing out that it is incoherent for anyone to suppose that he doesn’t exist, because you can’t suppose that you don’t exist if you don’t exist. Is this reasoning flawed in some way? Could Descartes have supposed that he existed if he didn’t exist?
 
40.png
MichaelLewis:
St. Thomas and St. Anselm both offered proofs for God’s existence, Anselm’s ontological proof was based purely upon human thought and reason. Thomas’s proofs were based partly upon experience. They both apparently thought it was worth while to give reasons to believe in God.

Descartes too thought it was worth while to have a reason to believe, not just in God, but in everything else. He made it quite clear from the onset that this was an experiment. He wanted to know with absolute certainty just what he could possibly know.

There is no question that Descartes thought God was in every sense prior to himself and all humans. Could explain just where you think Descartes went wrong? Do you hold that he was wrong to engage in such radical doubt to begin with? Do you hold that, having engaged in it and knowing nothing, he should have escaped via some other method? What method would you recommend? If you would employ God, just how would you conclude that he exists? You have no recourse to Thomas and Anselm’s proofs, for Anselm’s relies upon your mind and Thomas’s relies upon an external world AND your mind.

All Descartes was doing when he argued “I think therefore I am”, was pointing out that it is incoherent for anyone to suppose that he doesn’t exist, because you can’t suppose that you don’t exist if you don’t exist. Is this reasoning flawed in some way? Could Descartes have supposed that he existed if he didn’t exist?
Hey don’t argue with me! I’m not the brightest around… 😉

I don’t have a problem with using reason to prove God, I just think that saying reason defines God is misguided. God exists with or without human deduction.
 
40.png
batteddy:
Ultimately, we should primarily have faith in God and THAT should lead us to faith in our own existence, not the other way around.
So St. Thomas and St. Anselm were wrong to propose proofs of God’s existence?
Doesn’t it say somewhere in the bible that nature gives evidence of God’s existence? Is the bible puting nature before God?
 
Seeks God:
…saying reason defines God is misguided. God exists with or without human deduction.
Descartes would agree!

From Meditations:
I have always been of the opinion that the two questions respecting God and the Soul were the chief of those that ought to be determined by help of Philosophy rather than of Theology; for although to us, the faithful, it be sufficient to hold as matters of faith, that the human soul does not perish with the body, and that God exists, it yet assuredly seems impossible ever to persuade infidels of the reality of any religion, or almost even any moral virtue, unless, first of all, those two things be proved to them by natural reason. And since in this life there are frequently greater rewards held out to vice than to virtue, few would prefer the right to the useful, if they were restrained neither by the fear of God nor the expectation of another life; and although it is quite true that the existence of God is to be believed since it is taught in the sacred Scriptures, and that, on the other hand, the sacred Scriptures are to be believed because they come from God (for since faith is a gift of God, the same Being who bestows grace to enable us to believe other things, can likewise impart of it to enable us to believe his own existence), nevertheless, this cannot be submitted to infidels, who would consider that the reasoning proceeded in a circle. And, indeed, I have observed that you, with all the other theologians, not only affirmed the sufficiency of natural reason for the proof of the existence of God, but also, that it may be inferred from sacred Scripture, that the knowledge of God is much clearer than of many created things, and that it is really so easy of acquisition as to leave those who do not possess it blameworthy. This is manifest from these words of the Book of Wisdom, chap. xiii., where it is said, Howbeit they are not to be excused; for if their understanding was so great that they could discern the world and the creatures, why did they not rather find out the Lord thereof? And in Romans, chap. i., it is said that they are *without excuse; *and again, in the same place, by these words,*That which may be known of God is manifest in them–*we seem to be admonished that all which can be known of God may be made manifest by reasons obtained from no other source than the inspection of our own minds. I have, therefore, thought that it would not be unbecoming in me to inquire how and by what way, without going out of ourselves, God may be more easily and certainly known than the things of the world.
D’s Meditations are online at:
wright.edu/cola/descartes/mede.html
 
Is it the physical body that has consciousness or is it the soul? Just a thought: Maybe we surmise, form our respective banter, that God gave us the ability to reason His existence…
 
40.png
Godefridus:
JP0,

The tragic irony is that you begin to see why Cartesian subjectivism belongs to the core of the Culture of Death. Schaivo–and all of the hundreds (thousands?) of other people who are starved to death–are regarded as non-beings, for their lack of cognition.
Precisely…😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top