First off, I would like to argue the inaneness of even writing the piece. For Descartes to try to argue about the existence of, well, existence, he must, of course, start with his self. But in writing down his meditations on his self and its existence he has already forfeited his starting point that nothing else exists (i.e. his "raz[ing] everything to the ground and begin[ing] again from the original foundations"). It is as if he is telling you that there is no doorway when he is in fact standing in the doorway. By addressing it to the reader, his independent existence is immediately undermined.
I also feel that Descartes' conception of God, mainly his idea that "the mere fact that God created me makes it highly plausible that I have somehow been made in his image and likeness, and that I perceive this likeness, in which the idea of God is contained, by means of the same faculty by which I perceive myself". Seeing as how this is a rather lengthy quotation, I will break my arguments against it in two. First is the idea that it is "highly plausible" that we are in the image of God for the seeming reason that God made me. That is like saying (and I will use doors again) that if I make a door, it will look like me. Apart from my being brown and the door (hypothetically made of wood) being brown as well, there is not much physical similarity between it and me. Secondly, this idea of perceiving God as much like myself brings up another (yet a little more disgusting) thought. If God made man, and thus man is like God, then God must produce some sort of feces (for if I am not mistaken, man produces bodily waste). At least in my mind, it is odd to comprehend the idea of a "most perfect being" that is also capable of waste. As Milan Kundera in The Unbearable Lightness of Being writes, "Shit is a more onerous theological problem than is evil. Since God gave man freedom, we can, if need be, accept the idea that He is not responsible for man's crimes. The responsibility for shit, however rests entirely on Him, the creator of man". Thus, the idea that man is created in the likeness of God is nothing less than problematic.
In doing what Descartes asks of me in his "Preface to the Reader"-- not "fuss[ing] over statements taken out of context (as is the custom for many)--I feel I have found a few contextual points by which Descartes is taken of off his high horse. And of course, there is his writing near the end of this lengthy treatise that "the hyperbolic doubts of the last few days out to be rejected as ludicrous". Thus, the triviality of his Meditations, comes full circle.
5 comments:
I agree with most your points, Dev, considering we discussed them in the Middle Ground. I just want to address one of your qualms, Descartes' argument that because God made Descartes that Descartes looks like him. I understand your point that just because someone makes something it does not mean it looks like its creator. My problem with Descartes' argument has to do with the fact that he spent most of the book up until now denying the existence of the corporeal. How can he do that and then say it is "highly plausible that I have somehow been made in his image and likeness."? If he is saying here that his body is made in the image of God, then he is referring to his existence as something corporeal as opposed to a "thinking thing." Descartes earlier argument is that his existence is only dependent on being a “thinking thing” because it is impossible to trust the senses. He is trying to have it both ways, because he then goes on to say that "I perceive this likeness, in which the idea of God is contained, by means of the same faculty by which I perceive myself." This to me says, because I (Descartes) am a "thinking thing" who has thought of the idea of God so then I (Descartes) am able to perceive my—bodily—likeness to God. There are so many flaws in this argument. He could make the argument that his "thinking thing" quality is made in the image and likeness of God, but I don't think that is what he is saying.
As a side note, Dev, even if humans are made in the likeness of God it does not mean they are exactly like God. Descartes never said that. Therefore, the argument about the question of God’s production of waste is, well, crap.
A door might not look like its maker because it is not supposed to have the same function as the maker. God created us to be contemplative beings as He Himself is contemplative. Given that our functions are at the very least similar it more plausible to assume we look like God than say a door would look like us. Also remember Descartes is a dualist, he believes in a separation of body and soul. So the "made in his image" could very well refer to our souls, not our bodies. It is widely accepted in Christian tradition that God the Father doesn't have a corporeal body. If we are in fact made in his image, it must have something to do with the arrangement of our souls.
The way I understand Descartes' reasoning is that god is first a logical being, but also a thinking thing. If god is a thinking thing like humans, it is possible that god's ability to create is limited by his knowledge, only if god is limited to his a posteriori knowledge. Thus like human created anything god would limited to create things based upon either preexisting objects, so by creating man in his image, it is possible that this image could be gods imagined creature. The reason man has a likeness to god is that we are based on everything which is god, and cannot be based on ungod-like stuff.
No one could counter me by saying that god is all-knowing and could not be limited in his understanding of the universe or in knowledge. Thus, man could have been created out of thin air without any prior influences on god. But if that is true we must go back to the feces argument so if god has the power and insight to create a truly new object, in this case people, why would humans be so similar to other creatures of earth?
I wonder if we shouldn't hesitate to jump to the Christian Tradition when discussing Decartes' conception (or inception?) of God. To me, Descartes is saying the God is merely what is greater than anything he can conceive (much like Anselm). I don't quite see the connection between that and the Father-figure God who sent his only begotten son to be martyr for our collective sins. To me, God is God; he's not Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Taoist or______; he's just greater than I am. End of story.
But I do have to say, I like John's idea of God's creation of man. Although that makes me wonder how, if God is the prime creator of all of existence, did he create the apple-tree or the porcupine. Those must have existed before (God's a priori knowledge, correct? So in a sense, everything must have existed before everything existed. So does that mean that everything just existed before? No, wait. We (meaning all of existence. I understand how vain it is of me to speak on behalf of the universe, but roll with me) are probably just composites just like everything we imagine in our heads is. But I still feel confused. I will need more time to stew this one. Anyone with thoughts, guidance in my quest to figure out if everything existed before we existed (which must be impossible)?
Post a Comment