Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Descartes Discourse on Methods Part 4/ Paragraphs 38-39
In this part Descartes says that if you still do not believe in God after everything he has said then other things you believe in are not as certain like the body, stars, earth, etc. I think he is saying that God has created everything so you can not believe in those things unless you believe in the existence of God. He also says that even if people were to study this he does not believe that they can give any sufficent reason to remove the doubt unless they believed in the existence of God. I found this confusing because it seems like he is making it impossible to even prove that there is no God. I seems like he is not giving people a chance to prove it because if you were to try it would lead to believing in God. And he does not really explain why it would lead to the belief of God. He also says that anything we believe as being true is assured by the reason that God exists. Therefore, anything that is true is because of God and if you try to prove otherwise you would not be able to. It seems like he is giving you no other choice but to believe him and in God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
When I read this part of the book I didnt understand it either. Cus I think that he is saying that you must believe in God in order to believe in anything. But he also said that you cant believe in anything without being able to prove it. I agree with you that is not giving you a choice but to believe in God. It is odd that he siad you cant believe in certian things like the body, stars and earth with without believing in God. Because all things you see are easier to believe in than the things you cant see. I think he is saying that if you believe in the body, stars and the earth you must believe in the creater of the boby, stars and earth.GOD.
Its so wierd that he says you cant beleive in anything for certain but God. God is basically the one thing I think you really cannot prove, so arent his thoughts a little backwards?
Also in class a good point was made. maybe he did it becuase at hte time the book was written he was afraid of persecution. I dont know if we will even know if he felt obligated to put it in for his own safety or if he truely believed it.
Also in class a good point was made. maybe he did it becuase at hte time the book was written he was afraid of persecution. I dont know if we will even know if he felt obligated to put it in for his own safety or if he truely believed it.
I agree with what Rachel said, you can't really prove God for certain, evern though most are supposed to believe in him anyway, You cant really prove it, you can just believe it. I think his thoughts are a little backwards on this part.
I agree with waht Rachel said about in class I thought that was good point the because of when the book was written he could have been afird of persection. However I also think that he is telling in his own words what he really wants you to believe. That there isnt anything that is as perfect as God.
Erin you made a good point in saying he might just want us to belive himself because he does not really show a lot of evidence to support his reasoning and that same thought crossed my mind. He just might want us to believe him and follow his ideas.
Also, rachel made a good point to about what was said in class. I did not think of the time period in which this was written and i see how that might of effected what he wrote in the book.
Post a Comment