Descartes creates a spectrum of being where on one end God is placed as being the most “real” (having the most formal reality), the most certain and thus the most good while complete nothingness is placed on the other end as being the most uncertain and nonexistent thus the most evil. Humanity is placed in the middle of the spectrum where we are more “real” and good that nothingness but not as “real” and good as God. He states that, “insofar as I participate in nothingness or non-being, that is, insofar as I am not the supreme being and lack a great many things, it is not surprising that I make mistakes” (Descartes 123). He maintains that should one focus all their energy on God, there will be no cause of falsity in their lives because God has given humanity the capacity to be fully benevolent and error free (123). However, as soon as ones attention is turned on ones self, falsity, and thus evil, emerges as a privation of truth or goodness. It is not that falsity is something separate from truth but that it is a lack of truth or nothingness.
But wait! There's more. It is not enough that humanity errs because we are less real than God. Humanity is imperfect and limited in the knowledge we can attain however, we are not limited in terms of choice or the will. He establishes that the will is, “limited by no boundaries whatsoever” (124). The infinity of the will within humanity leads Descartes to state that, “This is so much the case that the will is the chief basis for my understanding that I bear a certain image and likeness of God” (124). All this builds up in a mind-boggling claim that, “God's faculty of willing does not appear to be any greater” than humanity's (125). Because humanity is not infinite, we lack the capacity of the infinite knowledge necessary to make the most perfectly informed decisions, and thus true decisions, possible. With this final claim, Descartes comes to the conclusion that one should not judge anything that they do not clearly and distinctly understand (127). He proposes that in an effort to keep from making false choices, one should refrain from making the choice and should instead meditate until the truth makes itself apparent. Sexy stuff.
The concept of nothingness as error is a really interesting notion, and in a way is a conundrum. Descartes draws this line and is quick to jump at the error of nothingness, but he never explained the regression of creation, chiefly, who created God? How can he assume that God, the perfect being, did not come out of error, or nothingness? Descartes cannot conceive of himself coming from nothing, so should this not apply to God? Just because the being is perfect does not mean that he created himself or logically could have.
ReplyDeleteMy second point of interest lies in the comparison of the human will and God's will. It seems that Descartes provides sufficient reasoning behind why our wills would be similar, or reflections of God's will, but it's quite pompous of him to say that we are exactly alike in that sense. There is no tool i can imagine that would measure our relative wills; the will to have belief in God through reason is not enough to establish this connection, as I see it.
I too found Descartes ideas of the will to be very interesting. He claims our will mirrors God's, it is the only feature we have that is "perfect", according to Descartes. However, our ability to use this will can be flawed, since our knowledge is very limited.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of positive and negative freedoms, as described by Descartes, stem from the lack of balance between knowledge and the will. He claims that positive freedom is born of a will that has sufficient knowledge to affirm (or deny) an idea, sounds like an informed decision. Whereas negative freedom is a result of an "indifferent will" that lacks the knowledge to make a sound judgment. The ideas seem strange, but after really thinking about it, it makes sense.
It is hard for many to ponder God without giving God human conceptual limitations. Decartes gives God characteristics of being "good" or "evil" when meditating on both his and the great creators existence. Take into consideration that if God exists and he is not only immortal and cannot be hurt, why would God worry about being a manevolent and caring being? We judge his action to be mysterious and outside of our understanding.
ReplyDeleteHow then with what Descartes himself confesses our limited knowledge can we ever get a glimpse into Gods ways. Maybe by pushing the collective but limited experience we can come closer to understanding but never achieving true knowledge of the infinite.
In the fourth meditation I am easily able to follow Descartes’ logic when it comes to God being the most certain being, while nothingness is the most uncertain and full of error. God is the creator of everything around us. As Decartes’ claims he may not have made us perfect in isolation from one another but as a cohesive system we are able to work (almost) flawlessly together. As he had stated in the previous mediations and what is able to also bolster his argument here, the universe moves in circles and when something leaves, something else always conveniently comes to fill its void. A perfect creator with a perfect creation. What I do have trouble with is this idea of the will. Although will may not be limited, I do believe that the decisions it makes are heavily dependent on things such as the senses and inclinations, something Descartes finds so much trouble relying on. I don’t think that knowledge, however limited or unlimited, can be the sole influence on one’s will.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to God being "good" or "evil" it is important to remember that the basis of Descartes' morality lies in the privation of truth. It's not a question of whether God cares about morals but that he is, in his entirety, truth and certainty making him unquestionably good.
ReplyDeleteWith this conception of morality, Descartes seems to have guaranteed that humanity will always be plagued by evil. What I find to be one of the most interesting quotes in this meditation is when he states, "and thus, so long as I think exclusively about God and focus my attention exclusively on him, I discern no cause of error or falsity" (123). I read that and I think Siddhartha or the soon to be Buddha. It's funny how his philosophy (especially the narrative of the meditations) is not as abstract as it may seem.