Montaigne, Descartes, and Pascal all believe in a superlative truth unforeseeable through the commonly held truth of society. Montaigne states that even contradictions are not contradictions in truth (Montaigne, p.75). Not believing in the possibility of this lack contradiction in truth would be considered scepticism - scepticism being the reluctance to believe anything for any reason. This same scepticism is explained by Descartes as a self-disproving falsity by his quotation "I think, therefore I am" (Descartes, p.24). Lastly, Pascal too concurs with this notion because he states "We must be able to doubt where necessary, to have assurance where necessary, by submitting where necessary. He who does not act thus does not understand the force of reason" (Pascal, p.93). This reason - your sense of what will bring about happiness (Pascal, p.31) - being persuaded by dogmatism, scepticism, and blind faith. Pascal describes scepticism as a "doubting everything for lack of knowing where one must submit" (Pascal, p. 93) - a statement in accord with Montaigne and Pascal. Dogmatism is described as a "certainty that everything is demonstrable" (Pascal, p.93). This is an unacceptable belief, however, because it reduces the infinitude of the universe to a finite explanation. Lastly, blind faith is described as "submitting in all things, for lack of knowing where one must use his own judgement" (Pascal, p.93). In other words, blind faith means believing what others tell you without considering what you feel is right. In fact, there is no explanation someone could give of God or truth because these are both infinite terms, and when infinite terms are expressed in the finite, they become nothingness (Pascal, p.86). Truth - when it i...
... middle of paper ...
...e in finite terms because those finite terms transform God and the truth into nothingness. This is why filling the infinite abyss is so impossible with finite means. Only the infinite can fill the infinite abyss. Furthermore, we know there is an abyss to be filled, because even the greatest doubts of the sceptics cannot deny that we exist since questioning whether we think is self-affirmative. We do exist; however, most individuals do so only realising the world of the finite. It is the realisation of the difference between the infinite and the finite - omniscience - that allows us to realise that the finite is nothing in relation to the infinite. Since God and truth are both nothingness in the finite, there is no way of describing them finitely; however, understanding the inability to distinguish these two concepts is precisely how one will understand them.
On the other hand, you could choose not to believe in God. If there is no God, then you are fine. You can sin all you like, you can allow yourself transgressions and forbidden acts, and the only punishments you will face will be those of this life. If, however, you lived thusly and there is a God, then you face an eternity of torture and unbearable misery. So, Pascal reasoned, one would do best to believe in God and act accordingly. That way, if you're wrong, the worst thing that could happen is that you were more pious and caring then you may have otherwise been. If you do not believe in God and you turn out to be wrong, the risks become terrifying.
In the Proslogion, Anselm tries to prove the existence of God and his powers through the ontological argument. This argument redirects the argument of God’s existence from science and observation to logic, where Anselm explains that there has to be a being that nothing greater can be thought of, and that is God. One of Anselm’s main topics of contention is God’s omnipotence and whether He is actually infinite. In the Proslogion, Anselm talks about God’s omnipotence and if it can be disavowed because of self-contradictory statements, how God’s non-action gives him more possibility and power, and how being all-powerful can lead to God being both merciful and yet not feel the pains of sinners.
Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.
Descartes was the first western philosopher to attempt to educate others on a puzzling question: how can one know with certainty anything about the world around us? “I realized that it was necessary, once in the course of my life, to demolish everything completely and start again right from the foundations if I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last” (Med 1, 12). In writing this meditation Descartes freed his mind of all information, and encourages the reader to do so as well, so that he could destroy established opinions. In order to determine whether there is anything we can know with certainty, he concludes that we must disregard all we were taught and then rebuild our knowledge into new and exciting philosophical foundations. If there was any notion that cannot be questioned, we should, for the time being, pretend that everything we know is disputable. However, Descartes did find the possibility of fully doubting absolutely everything unachievable, as one cannot truthfully fake all studied knowledge. However, he suggested that we, as skeptics, should doubt individual principles and think for ourselves.
In the face of Rene Descartes extreme doubt, he found that he hoped to use skepticism to find complete certainty. When doubting something, Descartes would start by asking if it is rationally possible to doubt everything. When proceeding to do this, he will find if there is any undoubtedly truth. Instead of Descartes trying to examine every belief that he holds, he examines the origins of different types of beliefs. In doing this, he rejects any idea that could be mistaken, and will reject it right away.
Pascal’s wager is the name given to an argument that was present by Blaise Pascal who was a French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher. Pascal had a strong belief for God’s existence. The argument hypothesizes and attempts to prove that there is more to be obtained from venturing on the existence of God rather than the rejection of the existence of God. Pascal’s wager states that man loses nothing in believing in God instead of reason through a game of chance. “You must either believe of not believe that God is – which will you do?” (Bailey, 99). Here, Pascal argues that reason and intellect cannot decide the question of whether God exists or not. Therefore, it makes logical sense to choose the option that would benefit us most even if it were considered to be right. Pascal states four options: one may live a religious and moral life and be rewarded by eternal happiness; one may live a pleasure – seeking life and be denied eternal happiness; one may live a holy live but there is actually no God or eternal life; and one may live a pleasure-seeking but it makes no difference because there is no God. The first of these options is the most important one because it represents the maximum gain and loss. If the turn out proves that there is no God, then the sheer risk of deciding against such a possibility warrants that we should take that option (99).
Blaise Pascal claims that having faith in God is an easy and obvious choice. Pascal claims that the reasoning to believe God is obvious, and claims that just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it isn’t there. He relates this to the number infinity, and although you can’t comprehend it or see it, we know that it exists. “We know that there is an infinite, and are largely ignorant of its nature. As we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and every number is odd or even (this is c...
The idea of God is something that would not just come natural. It is not living ordinarily and just thinking of God. The idea of God as a whole must be created by God. If humans are finite, and God is infinite, how could one possible have the thought of such an infinite being.
In order to be considered a non-evidentialist, one must believe that actual evidence is not required for all of our beliefs. Pascal believ...
Rationalism derives from the idea that accepts the supremacy of reason, as opposed to blind faith, and aims at establishing a system of philosophy, values, and ethics that are verifiable by experience, independent of all arbitrary assumptions or authority. The principle doctrine of rationalism holds that the source of knowledge is reason and logic. Thus, rationalism is contrasted with the idea that faith, revelation and religion are also valid sources of knowledge and verification. Rationalists, in this context, prioritize the use of reason and consider reason as being crucial in investigating and understanding the world, and they reject religion on the grounds that it is unreasonable. Rationalism is in contradistinction to fideism;
Cartesian Skepticism, created by René Descartes, is the process of doubting ones’ beliefs of what they happen to consider as true in the hopes of uncovering the absolute truths in life. This methodology is used to distinguish between what is the truth and what is false, with anything that cannot be considered an absolute truth being considered a reasonable doubt. Anything which then becomes categorized as a reasonable doubt is perceived as false. As Descartes goes through this process, he then realizes that the one thing that can be considered an absolutely truth is his and every other individual’s existence. Along with the ideology of Cartesian skepticism, through the thinking process, we are capable of the ability to doubt that which is surrounding them. This ability to think logically and doubt is what leads us to the confirmation of our existence.
ed by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him." (John 14:21) This is the only valid direct test for the Christian God's existence. The Bible never defines God as infinite, but defines Him as existing beyond the limitations of our four dimensional universe. This does not mean that He is infinite.
We are asked first to comprehend "Infinity," and then to whatever "infinity" "beholds" in not everything but "nothing," and that "nothing" itself to become the building material for "all” (1-2). Identifying the paradox, perhaps, as that which begins the Biblical account of the Creation.
Truth can be defined as conformity to reality or actuality and in order for something to be “true” it must be public, eternal, and independent. If the “truth” does not follow these guidelines then it cannot be “true.” Obviously in contrary anything that goes against the boundaries of “truth” is inevitably false. True and false, in many cases does not seem to be a simple black and white situation, there could sometimes be no grounds to decide what is true and what is false. All truths are a matter of opinion. Truth is relative to culture, historical era, language, and society. All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths) and there is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true (Hammerton, Matthew). A thing to me can be true while for the other person it may not be true. So it depends from person to person and here the role of perception comes into play. As truth is a vital part of our knowledge, the distinctions between what is true and what is false, shape and form the way we think and should therefore be considered of utmost importance. We often face this situation in real life through our learning curves and our pursuit of knowledge to distinguish between what is true and what is false. The idea of there being an absolute truth or also known as universal truth has been debated for centuries. It depends on many factors such as reason, perception and emotion.
The argument that is used in the idea of skepticism has comparable and incompatible views given from Augustine and Al-Ghazali. Both monologues cover and explain the doubts one should have, due to the