I have been reading Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. As greatly as I have enjoyed reading this, especially because of the proof he gives of the existence of God, there is definitely error in his ways to obtain "truth".
No one discredits the truth he stumbled upon known as the Cogito, or Cogito ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am".
In fact, philosophers use this as a base of thinking and searching for other truths.
But besides this, he comes to no other definite truth or conclusion. Even his proof of the existence of God (which I greatly enjoy) is circular reasoning.
So what is his error?
Doubt.
He based his entire reasoning of it all on doubt.
It is true he that he did stumble upon one singular truth with this method. Yet, that is ALL he was able to conclude. Only ONE truth! And yet, there are parts of that truth to even question.
So what is a better method?
Let me ask, what is the opposite of doubt?
The answer: Faith
How much more "truth" can you gain if you have faith?
Faith does not require proof.
Doubt requires proof.
Which is easier to obtain?
Doubt.
How many great things have really be achieved by doubt?
How many more things have been achieved because someone had faith?
Faith is more than believing. We will talk more on this in the next posting.
Thanks for reading. Please share any comments or thoughts below because your thoughts help produce more of my own thoughts!
No comments:
Post a Comment