Posted on 11/04/2002 7:52:21 AM PST by thinktwice
Descartes was a geometrician. He found only in mathematics and geometry the certainty that he required. Therefore, he used the methods of geometry to think about the world. Now, in geometry, one begins with a search for axioms, simple undeniable truths – for example, the axiom that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. On the foundations of such “self-evident” propositions, whole geometrical systems can be built.
Following his geometrical model, Descartes proceeds to doubt everything – de onmibus dubitandum. He will suspend belief in the knowledge he learned from childhood, all those things “which I allowed myself in youth to be persuaded without having inquired into their truth.” Doubt will be his method, a deliberate strategy for proceeding toward certainty. (Descartes is a doubter not by nature, but by necessity. What he really wants is secure understanding so he can stop doubting.)
Descartes finds that he has no trouble doubting the existence of real objects/events – our senses too easily deceive us. And we can doubt the existence of a supernatural realm of reality – figments and fantasies are too often conjured by our native imaginations. But now his geometrical model pays off: in trying to doubt everything, he discovers something that he can’t doubt. What he can’t doubt is that he is doubting. Obviously, I exist if I doubt that I exist. My doubt that I exist proves that I exist, for I have to exist to be able to doubt. Therefore I can’t doubt that I exist. Hence, there is at least one fact in the universe that is beyond doubt. “I am, I exist is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it.
Descartes thus becomes the author of the most famous phrase in Western philosophy: Cognito ergo sum, or, in his original French, Je pense, donc je suis. – I think, therefore I exist. With roots in St. Augustine, this is certainly one of the catchiest ideas yet created by the human mind.
to which I replied .... Why would an all-knowing God send us out ... so poorly equipped?
And now, you ask ...Oh? Are we equipped to do something? If so, what might that something be?
It was my thought that -- being created in the image of God -- that we're only slightly better than animals (we have reason and souls, lesser animals don't), and that human beings were left short in the God-given ability department.
The Catholic position is that the human person is body/soul. Each have different powers yet are fully united.Between death and resurrection of the body, when our souls separate from our bodies and our bodies corrupt, are we still human persons?
"Hi, Rene," says the bartender, "what'll it be this afternoon, your usual?"
"I think not," says Rene Descartes ... and disappears.
I ping, therefore I post.
I'm pissed, therefore I FReep.
I wonder why they didn't pick this one: "Good sense is the most evenly distributed commodity in the world." (He should have said, existence)
To which you write ... Now look at Bill Clinton and the Democratic party. "Heroic"? No way. Focused on happiness I'll giver her...
Bill Clinton and the Democratic party would disgust Ayn Rand, perhaps more so than they disgust Christians because Christians would offer forgiveness to Clinton and Clinton supporters.
Regarding happiness as being a proper goal for ethics, I would refer you not only to Rand's Objectivist ethics, but to Aristotle and eudaemonism.
Armed with that insignificant ability, what else do we need beyond animal abilities to discover and perhaps complete our purpose?
Christians would offer forgiveness to Clinton and Clinton supporters.Yeah, after we torched 'em ... : )
(Ah, that damned arrogance. Or, I'm mad at God, therefore I'm mad at Descartes)
Well, you've never read Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" because -- in that work -- she improves substantially upon Aristotle's work, and what you seem to have learned from Aristotle can be found in Rand's epistemology.
What is our purpose?
What is our purpose?To know, love and serve God in this world, and to be happy with him forever in heaven. (Baltimore Catechism; sometime last century; Question #2, as I recall : )
We're supposed to search the heavens for portents and also name the creatures, and a couple of other things. Maybe that's enough, and we sure aren't done at this time.
Ayn Rand's ideal human is the heroic human with a disciplined (that means using reason) mind. Rand's unideal person is the depraved human, one that follows without leading, one that parrots others without thinking, one that takes without achieving.
So you're right, Rand's stuff won't cut it with most people, especially that 43% of Americans voting for evil in every election.
Catechisms aside, I think our purpose is to use our God-given assets to the best of our abilities, and that -- assuming there is a Heaven, Hell or Hades (ref. Homer's Odysseus) -- the questions at the gate will be ... "What where your achievements?" and "What did you do with the gift (reason) I gave you?"
But I was jest havin' fun. Now you've got me thinking seriously.
[T]he questions at the gate will be ... "What where your achievements?" and "What did you do with the gift (reason) I gave you?"Can one determine here on earth whether what one does with the gift(s) one is given deserves eternal reward or punishment? Or does one have to wait for the end game to find out?
Some consider to build a house, to write a book, and to pass on the genome to the next generation to be acceptable for a life's accomplishments for those who live that long. As far as questions at the gate, I can't subscribe to that medieval nonsense. But we can each review our own lives at any time and see if we think we are doing it right or not. It's simple in America: It's money that matters - R. Newman.
I have Net Worth, therefore I am. How would Messr. Descartes have phrased that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.