Aquinas, Ockham, and Descartes about God. A free adaptation of their main arguments

_{Otangelo

December 30, 2022

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Video made with Artificial Intelligence.

Descartes:
By ‘God’, I understand, a substance which is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else […] that exists.
“I could not possibly be of such a nature as I am, and yet have in my mind the idea of a God, if God did not in reality exist.” I have concluded the evident existence of God, and that my existence depends entirely on God in all the moments of my life, that I do not think that the human spirit may know anything with greater evidence and certitude.

Thomas Aquinas’ Unmoved Mover

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3170-aquinas-first-mover-five-ways-argument

The cosmological argument for God’s existence

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1333-kalaam-the-cosmological-argument-for-gods-existence

The universe cannot be past eternal

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1333-kalaam-the-kalaam-cosmological-argument#5124

The cause of the universe must be personal

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1333-kalaam-the-cosmological-argument-for-gods-existence#5326

Nothing is the thing that stones think of

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2817-nothing-is-the-thing-that-stones-think-of

The philosophical cosmological argument of God’s existence https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1333-kalaam-the-cosmological-argument-for-gods-existence#545552

Syllogistic – Arguments of God’s existence based on positive evidence https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2895-syllogistic-arguments-of-gods-existence-based-on-positive-evidence

Comments

Origenes:
Is it your claim that man can make a free choice that cannot be traced back to God as a prior cause?
That is a vitally important question and it deserves special attention. Thank you. Recall that there is more than one cause of man's act of choosing. God causes the general capacity to choose by creating the faculties of intellect and will; man causes the specific choice that is made by using those capacities. So man's choices *can* be traced back to God in the sense that God's creative act of endowing his creatures with intellectual and volitional capacities, formed man as a moral agent capable of making moral choices. Without the capacity to make choices, no choice can be made. It was God's choice, not man's choice, that man should have this volitional power. Man had nothing to do with it. On the other hand, man's choices *cannot* be traced back to God in the sense that God had nothing to do with man's particular act of choosing one course of action from among two or more possible alternatives, such as the choice to love or hate his neighbor. That choice cannot be traced back to God because God had nothing to do with it. It is man, not God, that chooses hate over love, cruelty over kindness, or dishonesty over honesty. Thus, man, not God, is responsible for whatever good or back effects flow from those and other choices. (The exception, of course, would be those cases when man asks God for, and receives, guidance, in which case even particular moral choices *can* be traced back to God. However, that would not violate free will since, in this case, the creature chooses to follow God's will).
If so, can it be said that man is the ‘self-cause’ of his free choice?
Again, I think we are referring to two different senses. In the first sense, I understand the term "self-caused" to mean that the self caused itself to exist. As you know, I take a firm stance against that idea and I take it to be your position. In the second sense, the way you are using it here, I take you to mean that your "self," not God, is the cause of your free choices. As indicated above, there is more than one cause of your free choices: your capacity to choose is a cause (the causal conditions that make it possible) and your application of that capacity is a cause. In that second sense, I agree with you that your self, not God, is the direct cause of your moral choices. However, I think it is an error to consider the second sense only, and therefore out of context, ignoring the first sense, and them reasoning forward from such an incompletely formed set premises. Meanwhile, I don't think it is a good idea to use the term "self caused" to mean two radically different things [self causing its own existence] as opposed to [self causing its free will choices]. The goal here should be clarity, not strategic ambiguity.StephenB_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

StephenB Before I respond I ask you to respond to the following:
Ori: Suddenly, we see him arguing that the ‘human agent’ makes choices that cannot be traced back to a prior cause, that is God. IOW now we see him arguing in favor of self-causation, the very thing that he claims to be logically impossible and irrational.
StephenB: This is flat out ridiculous. I never have, and never will, argue for “self causation.” Just because humans can create new causal chains doesn’t mean that they can cause themselves to exist. That gig belongs to Origenes exclusively.
For clarity, two questions: 1.) Is it your claim that man can make a free choice that cannot be traced back to God as a prior cause? 2.) If so, can it be said that man is the ‘self-cause’ of his free choice?Origenes_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

Origenes:
If A is the sufficient cause of B, then all aspects of B, its actions included, are explainable by A.
You mistakenly conflate the category of capacities with the category of actions. An action is not an :"aspect" (as you put it) of a moral capacity; it is an effect of a moral capacity, which puts it in another category. God, which is [a] causes the human capacity to think and act [b] by creating it. Human agents use those capacities [c] to perform moral acts for which they are responsible. Thus, every human moral act has two causes: God, the creator of the capacities of intellect and will, and the human agent, the user of those capacities. Until you grasp this basic point there is no reason for me to discuss advanced concepts with you since you don't understand that some events require more than one cause. That error, compounded by your category confusion, seems to rule out any possibility for a meeting of minds.
StephenB holds that the concept of self-causation refers to a logical impossibility and is “irrational.”
Of course, it is logically impossible and the concept is, indeed, irrational.
In his view, only a world in which everything has a prior cause can be considered a rational world. Only God does not require a prior cause.
Yes, it’s called the principle of sufficient reason. Everything, except God, requires an explanation. Nothing just “pops” into existence without a prior cause. We know that Origenes thinks that he caused himself to exist. Does he attribute this same miraculous power to everything else as well? Is he an advocate of “pop” theory? Does he think that a horse can suddenly appear in his living room without a prior cause? Remarkable.
However, when I point out to StephenB that this logically implies that God caused everything, including our every thought and action, then he reverts and tries to have it both ways—see #150, #151.
This is, of course, nonsense. God, as the creator of man’s intellect and will is not the cause of man’s misuse of those capacities. God can be a necessary cause of human behavior (endowing man with the capacity to make good and bad decisions), without being the causal agent of a human’s bad decision.
Suddenly, we see him arguing that the ‘human agent’ makes choices that cannot be traced back to a prior cause, that is God. IOW now we see him arguing in favor of self-causation, the very thing that he claims to be logically impossible and irrational.
This is flat out ridiculous. I never have, and never will, argue for “self causation.” Just because humans can create new causal chains doesn’t mean that they can cause themselves to exist. That gig belongs to Origenes exclusively.StephenB_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Let’s look at Aquinas’s first mover argument again, starting with premise 5: [see post #1 for the complete argument]
The First Way: Argument from Motion ... 5.) Therefore nothing can move itself. 6.) Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. 7.) The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. 8.) Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
This is a description of 100% determinism. Determinism in optima forma. Things cannot get any more deterministic than this. Each thing in motion is set into motion by something else. No moved thing has any control over its movement. In Aquinas’ world, a moved thing has the same responsibility over its movement as a billiard ball has. No movement can be explained by the thing in motion — nothing can move itself. No self-movement anywhere (except God). All things are essentially lifeless. The causal chains of each and every movement originate from one place, and one place only: God. One thing that moves them all: God. There is but one thing that explains all movement: God. ENTER FREE WILL … How does one fit free will in 100% determinism? How does Aquinas do that? Let’s observe:
“Free will is the cause of its own motion because by his free will man moves himself for the sake of acting. Nevertheless, it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither is it required for one thing to be the cause of another that it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, moving both natural and voluntary causes. And just as by moving natural causes he does not divert their acts from being natural, so by moving voluntary causes he does not divert their actions from being voluntary; but rather he produces this ability in them: for he operates in each thing according to its own nature. [ST Ia 83.1]”
Let’s break this down:
Free will is the cause of its own motion because by his free will man moves himself for the sake of acting.
This sentence is in total contradiction with the first-mover argument, which clearly states that “nothing can move itself.” Here talks Aquinas writes about a free man who “moves himself for the sake of acting.” But how can this be consistent? Some explanation is to be expected.
Nevertheless ….
Ah! As predicted, here comes the explanation.
Nevertheless, it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither is it required for one thing to be the cause of another that it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, moving both natural and voluntary causes.
Let’s break it down some more:
Nevertheless, it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself …
A quick recap: first Aquinas states that a free man “moves himself”, in other words, he is the self-cause of his actions, but here he goes on to say (paraphrasing) “but that does not mean that man is the first cause of his self-causation.” Let’s read again the entire sentence:
Nevertheless, it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither is it required for one thing to be the cause of another that it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, moving both natural and voluntary causes.
What Aquinas is saying here is (paraphrasing): “A free man moves himself, but just like a billiard ball is not the first cause of its own movement, it is not required for a free man to be the first cause of his (self-)movement. In both cases God is the first cause.” Why put it that way? A free man is nothing like a billiard ball. Unlike a free man, a billiard ball fits perfectly in Aquinas’ 100% deterministic universe. Why put two totally opposite things in one sentence and treat them the same? To be a free man, to move yourself, means to be a distinct self-cause. Aquinas cannot allow for distinct self-causes and that’s why he inserts God as a first cause into man’s self-movement. However, self-movement is the self moving the self. Self-movement is a relation between self and self: self-self. There is no room between self and self, not even a single nanometer, not even for God. If Aquinas wants God to be an omnipresent cause. If God is the only mover, if God creates and moves each and every aspect of man, then man cannot be free, and cannot move himself. But if Aquinas wants man to be free, then God cannot be an omnipresent cause; then God cannot be the first cause of man’s free will. My larger point is: Aquinas cannot have it both ways. Compatibilism always fails.Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

StephenB
First of all, “self creation” is a logical impossibility, as has been pointed out many times,
StephenB holds that the concept of self-causation refers to a logical impossibility and is “irrational.” In his view, only a world in which everything has a prior cause can be considered a rational world. Only God does not require a prior cause. However, when I point out to StephenB that this logically implies that God caused everything, including our every thought and action, then he reverts and tries to have it both ways—see #150, #151. Suddenly, we see him arguing that the ‘human agent’ makes choices that cannot be traced back to a prior cause, that is God. IOW now we see him arguing in favor of self-causation, the very thing that he claims to be logically impossible and irrational. His principal objection to self-causation has magically evaporated. StephenB wants God to be the sufficient cause of every aspect of our being, but at the same time, he wants us to be a distinct self-cause of our actions.Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

StephenB
God is the sufficient cause of the human *capacities* to think and make moral decisions. God is the necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the human actions that flow from those capacities.
What you propose is logically impossible. If A is a sufficient cause of B, if every aspect of B is explainable by A, then B’s every action is explainable by A.
which are also caused by human moral agents. In that sense, all moral decisions have two causes, God as the creator of the power to deliberate and make choices and man as the user of the power to deliberate and make choices.
If A is the sufficient cause of B, then all aspects of B, its actions included, are explainable by A. In no coherent analysis of the causality of this scenario, can B be regarded as a co-cause of its actions that cannot be traced back to A.Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

Origenes:
If A is a sufficient cause of B, then B & its actions are explainable by A. If B would be and/or act such that it is not explainable by A, then A is not a sufficient cause for B.
God is the sufficient cause of the human *capacities* to think and make moral decisions. God is the necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the human actions that flow from those capacities. which are also caused by human moral agents. In that sense, all moral decisions have two causes, God as the creator of the power to deliberate and make choices and man as the user of the power to deliberate and make choices.StephenB_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

StephenB comments on the first premise of my argument (see #142)
1.) If everything about us is determined/made by God, then all our actions and thoughts are consequences of God.
… the term “everything about us” in this context is not sufficiently defined. If everything means every quality or attribute that we possess, that would not prevent free will. If everything about us means everything we are and everything we do, then of course there is no freedom for us because God is doing everything for us and we are not free do do anything for ourselves
By the term “everything about us” I refer to “every quality or attribute that we possess”, as in, God made each and every part of us. If A is a sufficient cause of B, then B & its actions are explainable by A. If B would be and/or act such that it is not explainable by A, then A is not a sufficient cause for B. So, to be clear, I do not agree with your claim: “If everything means every quality or attribute that we possess, that would not prevent free will.”Origenes_{January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

No need to make this complicated. The first man and woman had free will. God gave them one commandment. A stranger appeared and they disobeyed. But, some here think that God, because He knows what we will do before we do it, "controls" us. That was never the case. We can choose good - good actions - or choose to do something wrong. A reminder: God could have made human beings into robots that obeyed Him 100%. He did not do that. To add to the Christian perspective, remember, we can ask God for His guidance. We can read His instructions in the Bible. We can pray, "Lord, help me to do your will today." BUT, God will not turn you into a ROBOT and make you do a bunch of things. Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope."relatd_{January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Oriegenes:
My larger argument is this: Either self-creation is real and we are free rational beings in control of our actions and thoughts, or everything about us is created by God and we are not free rational beings in control of our actions and thoughts (see #142).
First of all, “self creation” is a logical impossibility, as has been pointed out many times, Second, self creation, even if possible, would not be a prerequisite for freedom. A created being can be free. Third, the term “everything about us” in this context is not sufficiently defined. If everything means every quality or attribute that we possess, that would not prevent free will. If everything about us means everything we are and everything we do, then of course there is no freedom for us because God is doing everything for us and we are not free do do anything for ourselvesStephenB_{January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Origenes:
If everything about us is determined/made by God, then all of our actions are a consequence of God.
There are several problems with this premise: First, you have stacked the deck against freedom by the way you are using the language. To be “determined” by God is, by definition, to have no freedom; in that case, God is making all the decisions and the creature has nothing to say about it. To be “made” by God could mean either freedom (for the creature) or no freedom, depending on how one is made. Yet you use the two terms (determined by/made) interchangeably so there is much confusion in your formulation. But let’s get to the key point. If we are made by God to act as an automaton, then again, we have no freedom because our behavior is merely the result of our programming. If, on the other hand, we are made by God to act as free agents, then of course, we do have free will. So what is a free agent? It is someone who is capable of deliberating with the faculty of intelligence, and making choices with the faculty of will. A fully functioning intellect provides a moral target for a moral agent; a fully functioning will shoots the arrow by acting in accordance with that target. Sometimes, due to the formation of bad habits, the will doesn’t function properly and decides to rebel against the intellect by shooting the arrow in a different direction. These faculties (intellect and will) were designed to work together, but the moral agent often finds himself at war with himself because his passions want to run the whole show. Sometimes a perverted will joins forces with the passions and forces the intellect to abandon its leadership role and just come along for the ride. If humans were determined, none of these conflicts would take place, but we know that they are real. So their respective roles are clear: God creates free men with the faculties of intelligence and free will; men use these faculties to act as created moral agents. God gave them the power to start their own causal chain; they started their own causal chain by using that power. God did not start their causal chain.StephenB_{January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Causa Sui I have attempted to explain my view on self-creation in #108. It wasn’t received well, and my horrible writing style is perhaps partly to blame. The other day I happened to stumble upon the following text, which, surprisingly, captures the basics of my view:
Certain conditions have to be in place in order to create a free being, and the gods take part in this process to a certain extent. However, such a process is more about separation and less about creating something determinately new. One could say that it is a process of opening up a new space of possibility ...[Terje Sparby on R. Steiner]
The term "separation" speaks to me. - - - - - - My larger argument is this: Either self-creation is real and we are free rational beings in control of our actions and thoughts, or everything about us is created by God and we are not free rational beings in control of our actions and thoughts (see #142).Origenes_{January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

VB@
“The awareness must observe awareness otherwise no awareness“
I must ask you to elaborate on this.
Going back to the previous post my question is how can we become aware of our self without first becoming aware of something outside of our self?
One of my “irrational” claims is that the self-aware person/the “I”/consciousness, cannot be understood as coming about in a timeline. In my view, there cannot be the awareness “there is something outside of myself” without there being self-awareness first. You are stating the opposite (paraphrasing): there cannot be the awareness “I am a self” without there first being the awareness of something outside of self. IMO we are both right. We have two things that presuppose each other ...Origenes_{January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

SA @
Here’s where your idea just fell apart. You are claiming that we “observe our self” (our higher self, our observing self).
I have made no claims about the existence of a “higher self”, you did, and it's part of your concept of mind. In fact, I hold that I do not have a higher self. All I said was: “If you did not observe (notice, felt) a higher self, then you cannot be aware of it.”
When you are “inside” of yourself, you do not have the vantage point to observe yourself. You cannot see what yourself is because you are living “in” yourself. You would need to extend beyond yourself (which would be impossible since to do that you would have to “go outside of yourself” and that cannot happen). Whatever is taking the observation vantage point is yourself so you cannot observe it. As I said, you can only infer that yourself exists based on the fact that there is something other than your lower self and your body at work.
How about a (mental) mirror? To abstractly conceive of self-observance is not a real problem in my opinion. The real problem lies elsewhere, and perhaps we will come to discuss that.
Ori: If you do not observe an inference in your mind then you cannot be aware of an inference.
As above, you’re saying that to infer the existence of something is the same as observing it.
No, I say that to be aware of something presupposes observing something.Origenes_{January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

1.) If everything about us is determined/made by God, then all our actions and thoughts are consequences of God. 2.) We have no control over God. 3.) If A causes B, and we have no control over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B. Therefore, 4.) If everything about us is made by God, then we have no control over our own actions and thoughts. - - - - - - - - If you don't accept this argument, which premise will you reject?Origenes_{January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

Going back to the previous post my question is how can we become aware of our self without first becoming aware of something outside of our self? Vividvividbleau_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

O, SA, SB Great discussion by all three of you. “The self must observe itself otherwise no self (awareness). “ Is it illegitimate on my part to replace self and just use awareness? It would read thusly. “The awareness must observe awareness otherwise no awareness “ One final thought. O, I don t think the order is correct, I see the order as 1) Self 2 Awareness of the outside world (LOI) 3) Awareness of self. Vividvividbleau_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

Origenes
If you have not observed the reason for the existence of these truths in your mind then you cannot be aware of their existence.
Here's where your idea just fell apart. You are claiming that we "observe our self" (our higher self, our observing self). Now above, you equate that to "observing the reason" that we have a higher self. Observing a reason for something is not equivalent to observing the thing itself. As I said, we can be aware of something without having observed it and you affirm that here by saying that we only are aware of reasons and not the thing. Thomistic realism is about being - the existence of things and then about their origin, tracing back being to God. I said:
I cannot extend outside of my observing self to observe my observing self. I can observe various functions of myself, but not the self in what it is.
You said:
Not sure what this means.
This is a key point so I'll explain further. To observe something you have to start from a vantage point. When you are swimming at the bottom of the ocean, you cannot observe what is happening at the top of Mount Everest. You cannot extend yourself beyond your location to view another. When you are inside of the universe, you cannot observe the outer edges of the universe. To do that, you have to extend yourself to a vantage point outside of the universe in order to see what the universe is like. You have to step outside of it to see it. When you are "inside" of yourself, you do not have the vantage point to observe yourself. You cannot see what yourself is because you are living "in" yourself. You would need to extend beyond yourself (which would be impossible since to do that you would have to "go outside of yourself" and that cannot happen). Whatever is taking the observation vantage point is yourself so you cannot observe it. As I said, you can only infer that yourself exists based on the fact that there is something other than your lower self and your body at work.
If you do not observe an inference in your mind then you cannot be aware of an inference.
As above, you're saying that to infer the existence of something is the same as observing it.
The self must observe itself otherwise no self (awareness). The self must do that himself. No other can help the self become a self.
That requires a lot more explanation to be comprehensible.Silver Asiatic_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

However, his unstated thesis, which he alludes to and is also silent about , is not so trivial (Existence takes logical precedence over action).
I’m sure that Descartes agrees with you. No existence (nothing) then no action. Absolutely undeniable, because from nothing nothing comes.
As Origenes says “the fact that I am doing something means I exist”. That’s a tautology. To do something means to exist.
Well, that is what Descartes is saying. However, his point is also that when you see a bird flying in the sky, you cannot have the same certainty about its existence as you have about your own existence. The bird may not exist and can be your hallucination. However, it cannot be the case that you do not exist and (from nothing) hallucinate yourself ....
Everything that exists does something.
Is that true?
Therefore, I exist because I am doing something.
The brute fact that I do something presupposes my existence.
And Origenes is right about that. My point is that Descartes didn’t say that, however, the principle definitely works and it can, indeed, be applied to “doing,” Existence takes logical precedence over doing. But why stop there? Why not this: I observe, therefore, I exist.
Perfectly fine with me. I feel, therefore, I exist. I hear music .... I “whatever”, therefore, I exist.Origenes_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

SA @ 133
I’m saying that you can be aware of something without observing it.
I am saying that you cannot. Without exception, awareness is preceded by observation.
I am aware that many truths exist which I do not know. I have not observed these truths, but I am aware that they exist.
If you have not observed the reason for the existence of these truths in your mind then you cannot be aware of their existence.
In the same way, I am aware that I possess a higher self but I do not and cannot observe this self.
If you did not observe (notice, felt) a higher self, then you cannot be aware of it.
It’s an inference not an observation.
If you do not observe an inference in your mind then you cannot be aware of an inference.
I cannot extend outside of my observing self to observe my observing self. I can observe various functions of myself, but not the self in what it is.
Not sure what this means.
The self is not created by the self – it’s given to human beings by the creator.
The self must observe itself otherwise no self (awareness). The self must do that himself. No other can help the self become a self.
We don’t create our own rationality, freedom or conscious awareness.
Self-awareness presupposes self-observation.Origenes_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic:
If that’s what he {Descartes]means, it’s a trivial statement.
Yes, the first part of his statement (I think, therefore, I exist) is trivial but true. However, his unstated thesis, which justifies the claim, is not so trivial (Existence takes logical precedence over thought).
As Origenes says “the fact that I am doing something means I exist”. That’s a tautology. To do something means to exist. Everything that exists does something. Therefore, I exist because I am doing something.
And Origenes is right about that. My point is that Descartes didn't say that, However, the principle definitely works and it can, indeed be applied to "doing," Existence takes logical precedence over doing. But why stop there? Why not this: I observe, therefore, I exist. Thus, existence takes logical precedence over observation, or self awareness, or any other operation, which is the point that you and I have been making all along..StephenB_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Slver Asiatric
The self is not created by the self – it’s given to human beings by the creator. Self-awareness and free-will are properties given to human nature by the creator of human natures. We don’t create our own rationality, freedom or conscious awareness.
Absolutely correct. These points cannot be overstated.StephenB_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Let us remember the two points that drive the discussion: First, the purpose of Descartes approach was to attain some measure of certain knowledge by using unassailable logic without the benefit of empirical verification on the grounds that the senses are not trustworthy. This was a serious mistake. Granted, the senses, without benefit of reason, can, in some cases mislead us, but they are, in the main, reliable where reason is applied. Even the classic case where the pencil appears to be bent in a glass of water is known to be an illusion, but only because the senses *can* be trusted to show us the difference between the straight pencil outside the glass and the (apparently) bent pencil inside the glass. Descartes great failure was to reject realism on false grounds. Second, the rejection of realism’s rules of right reason, including such guidelines as the laws of causality, identity, and non-contradiction, destroys the tools of rational thought and leads people to say things like, “my existence comes ‘by way of’ observation” (rejecting metaphysical causation), ” or “Aquinas says that Humans cannot move themselves” (asserting a factual error), or confusing the truth that free will exists, albeit with limitations, with the claim that free will doesn’t exist at all (attributing one’s logical missteps to Aquinas, who does not make logical errors).StephenB_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Origenes
Do you agree that being aware of someone in the next room is not possible without noticing/hearing anything?
I'm saying that you can be aware of something without observing it. I am aware that many truths exist which I do not know. I have not observed these truths, but I am aware that they exist. In the same way, I am aware that I possess a higher self but I do not and cannot observe this self. It's an inference not an observation. I cannot extend outside of my observing self to observe my observing self. I can observe various functions of myself, but not the self in what it is. The self is not created by the self - it's given to human beings by the creator. Self-awareness and free-will are properties given to human nature by the creator of human natures. We don't create our own rationality, freedom or conscious awareness.Silver Asiatic_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

@130
One reason why Decartes’ work was put on the Index is because his attack on realism leads to a denial of reason itself. It’s a self-refuting proposal whereby one must use one’s own mind to validate the correctness and even existence of one’s own mind. Without objective realism there’s no other validator for rational thought.
To be sort of fair to Descartes, he only thinks he's denying direct realism about perception. He certainly thinks that he can justify objective realism with regard to God, mathematics, and physics. What's perhaps more interesting about Descartes is his attempt to vindicate reason by way of reason. I think that project fails, but for interesting reasons that are worth examining closely.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

StephenB
“I think, therefore, I exist” — (because I would have to exist in order to be able to think).
If that's what he means, it's a trivial statement. As Origenes says "the fact that I am doing something means I exist". That's a tautology. To do something means to exist. Everything that exists does something. Therefore, I exist because I am doing something. By its nature, subjectivism destroys the value of everyone else. It's radical individualism where the human community is reduced to being an illusion. It says, basically, "Nobody matters but me." But then this is denied as subjectivists attempt to teach and argue with other people to convince them. The reality is, that other people can tell you something about yourself that your own mind did not know. Other people can tell you that you were alive when you didn't know it, and therefore indicate that you existed when your mind was not aware that you did.Silver Asiatic_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

One reason why Decartes' work was put on the Index is because his attack on realism leads to a denial of reason itself. It's a self-refuting proposal whereby one must use one's own mind to validate the correctness and even existence of one's own mind. Without objective realism there's no other validator for rational thought. This is the nature of the argument we've had here for months regarding Idealism, where the idealist continually has to refer to an external reality to explain and validate the proposal that there is no external reality. It's the same with Decartes. He uses knowledge gained through the senses (classic Thomistic realism) to propose that his own thoughts are the demonstration (to who?) of his existence. It ends with the circular problem that Origenes proposes: "A person creates himself". I don't think you can attack Thomistic thought by denying the first principles of causality (that potency cannot actualize itself), unless you're willing to come up with an entirely different worldview where things can create themselves from nothing.Silver Asiatic_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

PM1@ I would like to note that (self-)observation (understood in its most general sense) and awareness precedes & accompanies thinking. That is, thinking is not possible without observing one's thoughts.Origenes_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

@127
Therefore everything that I do presupposes my existence. It is not the case that only my act of thinking presupposes my existence.
Just to point out that Descartes uses the term "thinking" to mean everything that a mind does: a "thinking thing" (res cogitans) is something that thinks, understands, doubts, and also (insofar as it is temporarily unified with a living body) imagines and perceives. So Descartes would agree with you that what you perceive also demonstrates that you exist, only he would classify that as a kind of thought -- the kind of thought that a mind can have if it is temporarily unified with a living body. The reason why Descartes doesn't make this explicit is that he's arguing against direct realism in philosophy of perception: that what we perceive is just what is there. Descartes's objection turns on the following point: the only version of direct realism he was familiar with was based on Thomistic hylomorphism, and that involved a physics that was incompatible with the new mechanistic physics that he and his friends were busy developing. His project is to re-found the whole basis of epistemology in light of the new mechanistic physics, while at the same time showing that this is no threat to the authority of the Church. (Arguably he failed, since his books were put on the Index anyway!)PyrrhoManiac1_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

because I would have to exist in order to be able to think
I have to exist in order to be able to think. Yes. I have to exist in order to be able to feel. I have to exist in order to be able to see the computer screen. I have to exist in order to be able to hear the early birds. I have to exist in order to be able to type this sentence. I have to exist in order to be able to .... do ... anything. Therefore everything that I do presupposes my existence. It is not the case that only my act of thinking presupposes my existence.
You appear not to understand what you are reading. .... No. It has nothing to do with “doing.”
....Origenes_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply