What caught my interest was Descartes explanation of error.
Basically all humans are defective, which I talked about in the last post. However he then he makes an eye- opener of a statement. He basically says that our errors are created by a defect, that defect being a lack of knowledge of something which allow us to make mistakes.
Isn't he really just going around in circles? I mean he says that we gain our knowledge from God, the perfect being, and that God will not decieve us but then why would we have a lack of knowledge which can lead to mistakes if God gives us knowledge and wouldnt trick us?.... that really gets me thinking.
His next big statement was this:
"the nature of God is immense, incomprehensible, and infinate, this is sufficient for me..."
It sounds to me from that he is just settling and choosing to except this idea but doesn't that really go against everything he said in the discourse?? Maybe he gave up because he may just have given doubt to God actually existing.... hmmm...... CRAZY!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with you he does sound crazy. I read a part where he talks about how he should never make a mistake because of having finite knowledge. And if he understands things clearly and distinctly he said he would be perfect because of God. But his reasoning for this was because God is only perfect...so he confused me there. If God was only perfect then how would it make him perfect?
I agree with you. As I read the book I felt like he was going around and around. Like one part he talked about dreams, then he talked about God and error. Then the next part he was back to dreams. Then he would doubt what he say.? Why couldnt he just say it all the dream stuff in one part all the God stuff in another? Is it because some how it all fits together?
Post a Comment