I read the article and was okay with it until step 5. I don’t think that the idea of “esse” has to be apart from any object. Things exist. I exist. But it seems different to say “exist exists.” Existence is an idea I have connected to objects. Apart from objects it is meaningless. Everything beyond that is based on Thomistic assumptions.It seems to me that, even if I granted that assertion, I could still know that things other than myself exist. This article from Catholic Answers appears to prove this point, and I’d love to know your thoughts on it.
Completely untrue. Faith is not a leap into the dark. Faith gives knowledge.I do not know for sure if what I believe is really the “word of God”. I do not think I am capable of knowing that for certain, but I do think that the Catholic Church is, due to reason, more probably correct than any other religion. I don’t know what the CCC means by “certain”, but it is definitely not the “certain” I understand within myself.
“Faith is certain” is a bizarre claim. If one is certain of a truth, it is not faith, it is knowledge. For that which is not certain, faith is necessary.
My experiences of an external world are objectively real. But my experiences cannot logically prove that they correspond to an external world. The bolded statement is correct in the sense that I know certainly that objects exist within my awareness. But the nature of this awareness and how it indicates that which is apart from me/my perception, I cannot know certainly.The problem is that the external world DOES exist in an undeniable way. The chair in front of me is not me. I am certain of that. What you seem to be doing is claiming that you cannot know for certain that the chair is NOT part of you because it is held within your conscious awareness.
It seems to me that you have to be engaging in self-deception merely by assuming that because it is in your conscious awareness it must, therefore, be merely an aspect of that awareness.
It is one thing to be left in a state of wonder in terms of how consciousness of something can be indicative of the actual existence of the thing. It is, however, entirely another to insist that consciousness of something must therefore reduce to the presumption that the thing has no existence in itself.
Like I said, I think the Church does not have the understanding of “certain” that I have. I have read through the Catechism on this topic, and have not found anything explicitly condemning solipsism. The same Catechism claims that “converging and convincing arguments” enable a person to gain certain truth, which I deny according to my understanding of “certain”. So I can only say that the Church must have a different idea of “certain”.Completely untrue. Faith is not a leap into the dark. Faith gives knowledge.
At this point I will encourage you to read the Catechism and the Encyclical Lumen Fidei.
But solipsism is not compatible with Catholicism
From Vatican I:
On God the Creator of all things:
On Revelation:
- If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
- If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema
- If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
If there is no distinction between essence and existence, then there can’t be change.I read the article and was okay with it until step 5. I don’t think that the idea of “esse” has to be apart from any object. Things exist. I exist. But it seems different to say “exist exists.” Existence is an idea I have connected to objects. Apart from objects it is meaningless. Everything beyond that is based on Thomistic assumptions.
True, we have a sensation of existing. and when we think of that sensation we can say at the very least that we could not possibly be thinking of existing if we do not exist.Cogito; ergo sum.
This is Descartes, but Descartes is wrong.
The correct formulation is:
I exist; therefore I think.
We have a sensation of existing before we have any thought we can have about existing.
More made-up philosophical terms that may or may not correspond to reality.If there is no distinction between essence and existence, then there can’t be change.
What you read in the Catechism was a reference to Cardinal Newman. The reality of an external world is assumed true in Catholic dogma–to deny it would be to deny what the dogmas are saying (the reason I referenced Vatican I). To question it would be to question the faith.Like I said, I think the Church does not have the understanding of “certain” that I have. I have read through the Catechism on this topic, and have not found anything explicitly condemning solipsism. The same Catechism claims that “converging and convincing arguments” enable a person to gain certain truth, which I deny according to my understanding of “certain”. So I can only say that the Church must have a different idea of “certain”.
At most, this can only show that the information you are receiving is not identical to you. It is not certain knowledge that the information presented is representative of how objective reality truly exists externally to that information.The problem is that the external world DOES exist in an undeniable way. The chair in front of me is not me. I am certain of that.
Why not take the final step and assume that your certainty that you perceive anything AT ALL is also mistaken because that, too, assumes that YOU correspond to something objectively existing and real.My experiences of an external world are objectively real. But my experiences cannot logically prove that they correspond to an external world. The bolded statement is correct in the sense that I know certainly that objects exist within my awareness. But the nature of this awareness and how it indicates that which is apart from me/my perception, I cannot know certainly.
But assumed along with the fact of existence is that existence is rational. If it weren’t, then there would be no real reason to think that we exist.At most, this can only show that the information you are receiving is not identical to you. It is not certain knowledge that the information presented is representative of how objective reality truly exists externally to that information.
I don’t think he is arguing that his experiences are identical with the nature of his mind.
That is what solipsism is. Nothing exists but the content of your experiences (aka your mind.)At most, this can only show that the information you are receiving is not identical to you. It is not certain knowledge that the information presented is representative of how objective reality truly exists externally to that information.
I don’t think he is arguing that his experiences are identical with the nature of his mind.
It is not made up anymore than logic is. If a things nature is the act of existence it cannot change or be anything else than what it is. It cannot take on more existence. It cannot potentially become something else since what it is essentially is what existence is essentially; and thus it cannot cease to be that thing.More made-up philosophical terms that may or may not correspond to reality.
Like I said I do not see yet how existence is a reality apart from objects. It is a descriptive idea of objects.It is not made up anymore than logic is. If a things nature is the act of existence it cannot change or be anything else than what it is. It cannot take on more existence. It cannot potentially become something else since what it is essentially is what existence is; and thus it cannot cease to be that thing.
Perception is all I have. That which I perceive is objectively real at the level that I experience it. I do not know if I experience an external reality or not. Yes, I can accept that my perception of myself may be incorrect. But I can say that my perception of myself is real in and of itself, even if I cannot know if I correctly perceive the nature of myself.Why not take the final step and assume that your certainty that you perceive anything AT ALL is also mistaken because that, too, assumes that YOU correspond to something objectively existing and real.
Just as objects may not correspond to anything in the external world, the perception that you as subject having those perceptions may not correspond to anything in the internal world. May as well take that plunge for essentially the same reason – uncertainty as to what necessarily corresponds with your perceptions.
You, in other words, as an object of internal perception, may also be merely a perception that is subject to the same doubt as the “external” things are. You may not exist merely because you perceive yourself to, just as external things may not exist just because your perceptions lead you to think they do.
I realize that this post is soon to be buried in the rush of replies in this thread, but I have a question.
- If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
If existence was merely a descriptive idea of objects then nothing would exist because out of nothing comes nothing. There is a thing or nature that is the “act” of existence. When a thing comes into existence that thing cannot be said to be identical with it, because if it was identical with existence it would not come into existence it would be existence.Like I said I do not see yet how existence is a reality apart from objects. It is a descriptive idea of objects.
Like I said, I understand that “existence” is primarily a descriptive idea of objects we use to make sense of the world. The rock exists (at least in my perception ) because I experience it. If I conceived of a “rock”, but found that the idea was not represented in my perception, then I would say that the “rock” was “nonexistent” because the idea of a rock found no corresponding sensation of a rock.If existence was merely a descriptive idea of objects then nothing would exist because out of nothing comes nothing. There is a thing or nature that is the “act” of existence. When a thing comes into existence that thing cannot be said to be identical with it, because if it was identical with existence it would not come into existence it would be existence.
Actually, it is acknowledging that nothing apart from your experiences can be known certainly by you.
That is what solipsism is. Nothing exists but the content of your experiences (aka your mind.)
Well, no. Perception is not “all you have.” In fact, perception is quite distinct from conception. Perceiving something is not the same as conceiving. In other words, having sensory awareness (perception plus the capacity to image what is perceived) is not identical to being able to think about an idea or concept (conceive or conceptualize.)Perception is all I have. That which I perceive is objectively real at the level that I experience it. I do not know if I experience an external reality or not. Yes, I can accept that my perception of myself may be incorrect. But I can say that my perception of myself is real in and of itself, even if I cannot know if I correctly perceive the nature of myself.