This is a post.

As strange as this may sound, I have doubted everything before in ways much similar to Descartes’ methods; though it was not necessarily as intentional and systematic as Descartes, it has transformed the way I’ve thought ever since.

Think about it: how much of your life do you really remember? What do you really know about your existence apart from what your parents, Sunday school teachers, and textbooks have told you?

Perhaps it was not my past that made me question everything as much as it was my life and struggles at the time. It was as if I did not recognize where I was or what I was doing, and for a moment even my name seemed the most absurd thought, and I recognized it even less than the world around me. It felt like a dream—like insignificance. How do I know that I even exist? Everything I ever knew was only based on my personal perception; this is when I began to wonder if it were ever possible to be completely certain of anything—if in fact there could ever be such a thing as absolute truth.

I could not think this way for long, though. Just as Descartes deduced, our very thinking is a certainty because we think it to be certain. It reaffirms itself. And truth is something that we long for, something that our soul needs, and to deny its absolute existence is not only foolish but also impossible.

Though it can leave us in a whirlwind of thought and confusion, it gives me a glimmer of hope: first of all, because I feel somewhat less crazy for having pondered these things, and secondly, because I find the answer to be so very beautiful. We exist, and that is certain; knowing that beyond a doubt leads us on to search for God, purpose, etc.

Going through the darkness allows us to appreciate the light so much more; we dare not forget the questions, lest we cease to appreciate the answer.

--Danielle

And I commented on Bethan's.

I am not a fan of the way Descartes thinks but that doesn't mean I can't agree with some of the things he says. In his own words, "I must nevertheless here consider that I am a man, and that, consequently,...representing to myself in dreams those same things,...,which the insane think are presented to them in their waking moments." I thought this was very enlightening to those of us who find ourselves occasionally questioning the reality of our waking moments, because often our dreams can seem more real to us than those experiences we have throughout the day. While I cannot wrap my mind around the concept of my hand extended in front of my face not being part of reality, I can see how our perception of something we know to be real can change over time because of our own doubting nature. I thank God that He gives me a peace to supercede these doubts.

P.S. commented on Katie Mclamma's post

I HATE BLOGGING

I think it would be fair to say that Descartes and I are not the greatest of friends. To be honest, reading his meditations gave me a headache to the point where I felt as if pieces of my brain were falling away like wet cake. However, I did find something interesting and powerful enough to numb the pain for a bit so I could get some thinking done. So here goes.

Finally, my struggle ended at part two, paragraph six. Here, Descarte doubts the existence of his own body, and therefore all the functions that go along with it. He claims that, " if it be true that I have no body, it is true likewise that I am capable neither of walking nor of being nourished." Preceeding this paragraph, all of the things in which Descarte has claimed are doubtable have seemed quite insane to me, and I had not been able to properly grasp what he was trying to say, including this. Then I got to really thinking, and I came up with this: Descarte claims that we may have no body because our mind perceives that our body is just there, like a trick of the eye; something that we build around what our mind thinks and perceives should be there. It all comes down to our mind, we are " thinking thing[s]". So If our body is not really there, and we just perceive that it is, can we doubt that perception, like he asks, at the same time we made it? Descarte answers: " Perception too is impossible without the body; besides, I have frequently, during sleep, perceived objects which I afterward observed I did not in reality perceive." This is like in dreams when you are surrounded by people and you have this strong sense of knowing who they are; you can talk to them by name and distinguish them by faces, but when you wake up and think back on it...these unknown blobs from your dreams dont have a face, let alone a name, that you can recall. I think that this is what doubt does to us. If you can doubt your own mind's perceptions, then why not, as Descarte suggests, doubt your own existence? For the mind is, as he claims, the strongest reality of our existence.

Hopefully that made some kind of sense and was not too convoluted. It was my first attempt at blogging and to be fair to myself I only had one coffee today and it tasted like soggy dirt, so please dont be too harsh!

Descartes' Doubt

If I were to say that I understood all that I read this week, You could call me a liar. With that being said, I am not exactly sure how I plan to do this, but it will be good.... Hopefully... :)

After reading Descartes’ Meditations, I realized that a lot of my knowledge is based on things that I heard second hand and didn’t learn through my own experience. Some of these things are probably not wrong, but how can I be sure? Unlike myself, a person who will probably not do a single thing about this question that I just asked, Descartes took upon himself the challenge of seeing what, if anything, in life could be proved. I liked how he took all his thoughts and ideas and began to look at every detail from them and doubt what he saw until he either, a) found something that he could not doubt, or b) discovered that there is nothing certain. Through this process, he made quite a few uncertain conclusions, from the idea that God was deceiving him to the thought that a demon was making him see the imaginary world that he thought was around him. I do think that the idea of doubting knowledge could be very helpful, but I don’t ever plan on taking that to Descartes’ extreme and doubt all that I know.

Descartes’ Meditations definitely helped me understand that doubt isn’t bad as long as you are truly looking to gain more understanding and knowledge of the world, God, or anything else. As long as my doubt isn’t based merely on just wanting to go against everyone else, it shouldn’t be an issue.

P.S. I commented on Amy Smith’s post.

My Doubts and Crazy Philosophers

Descartes seems to be taking me back to high school. In high school, when I learned about Descartes’, “I think therefore I am,” I thought he was kind of odd. “Of course you exist!” I thought. After digging deep into his philosophy in college I think I have changed my mind. You really have to try hard and follow his logic to really understand why his concept is important. In high school I brushed over him looking at face value, and moved on. He was just another “crazy philosopher” But truly, unknowingly, I had some very similar thoughts.

An example of similar thoughts was my singing voice. I have always loved singing, and I believe that I can sing. However, I cannot even count the times that I have doubted I can carry a tune at all. When people told me that I sing well, I would wonder if they were just saying that to be nice. I can hear myself. “My senses tell me I sound right, but what if I’m hearing wrong?” I thought. “What if my senses are fooling me?” “What if I’m really tune-deaf?”

A couple of years ago I had just learned about how the eye works. I walked through our back yard and looked up at a pine tree. It looked so beautiful, with its branches blowing in the wind. I thought, “Am I really seeing this?” Is the tree really green? If our eyes worked differently what color would it be? Does God see it the same way I do?

Further, I began to think. Am I really here? Where am I? Is this a dream? Now, at this point you are probably thinking, I am crazy,(I thought I was too) but just follow me. You see, Descartes questioned if he was what he thought, or if everything he perceived was really his imagination, “But how could I deny that I possess these hands and this body and withal escape being classed with persons in a state of insanity…. To cause them pertinaciously to assert that they are monarchs when they are in the greatest poverty; or clothed in gold and purple when destitute of covering” (Meditation I, paragraph four). “Am I just part of a made up world?”(Truman show) I thought. Why was I thinking these thoughts? I do not know. I thought it was bizarre.

You see, Descartes’ point was the fact that whatever is doubted, and tested becomes tried and true. Truly, Descartes’ concept was not totally new. Socrates, long before Descartes, urged the people of Greece to be critical of everything. If you’ve been in Mashburn’s philosophy class you will understand the phrase, “Don’t drink the cool aid!” You see, Descartes is trying to prevent you from drinking poisonous cool aid! No, I believe there is a limit to doubt, but doubt is not always harmful. I’m beginning to believe that doubt can be wholesome. Descartes said in meditation one, paragraph one, “…And from that time I was convinced if the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure…” If we are able to rebuild our foundations to be stronger, why wouldn’t we? Philosophy challenges us to be honest with our prejudice and doubt everything we’ve ever known in order to lay a better foundation for ourselves.

Oh dear, I think I’m becoming a “crazy philosopher”.

Anna Rhodes

P.S. I commented on Amy Smith's post.

This first blog brings back great memories

Sitting down to write this blog brings back some old memories from the days of honors past. This time I'm going to actually do the reading though.

First of all I want all of you to know that Descartes is one of my favorite philosophers. I fell in love with his work last year during PY 101. He made me rethink everything that I ever thought I knew about thinking. Rereading it this year brought back the memories of the completely forgetting everything I knew about thinking.

After I read this passage I set down in an attempt to remove all of my biases that I have developed over the span of my life. I found it impossible to remove all of them. Some of the things that I have been taught at a young age I found it impossible to look past now. I found it was easy to doubt some things through systematic logic. I could doubt that I was actually awake and that my body as a whole actually exists. I then tried to doubt my mind and that is impossible. I tried to and found that the only way to know that I exist is through the thought process. This lines up with the thinking of Descartes when he says, "cogito ergo sum." Which everyone knows but I'll translate anyways, "I think therefore I am." This is the opposite view of one of my professors at the school who says that, "He is therefore he thinks." I found it a fairly comical view especially since it's a pun on Descartes who we are reading at the same time as he told us this.

-Lane

P.S. I commented on Katelyn Osborne's blog

Well Here Goes Nothing...

I have never written a blog before so I’m really nervous. I’m also not very good at explaining things. It always appears to sound better in my mind and then it turns to crap when I actually write it out. Anyways, I’m going to give this a try so just bear with me.

I had a lot of trouble understanding some of Descartes’ writings so I broke down the parts that I did know and went from there. I thought that Descartes was stating that it’s harder for the people who have no faith or nothing to live for to find it harder to believe that the soul continues to go on long after the body has died in the part labeled number 2 of the first page starting with “for although to us the faithful…neither by the fear of God nor the expectation of another life.” But it seems that he second guesses himself further down in the paragraph when he states “we seem to be admonished that all which can be known of God may be made manifest by reasons obtained from no other source than the inspection of our own minds.” He brings up the idea that God and religion is just all in our minds. He also talks about how faithless people want physical proof of God and Heaven. I find that physical evidence is impossible to show because the only way for people to truly see God is when they pass away and travel to Heaven and meet him there. As far as we know, no one has ever returned from the dead to tell us that he’s real. I believe that physical proof can be found in us as well. Miracles happen every day. People walk away from terrible accidents that should have claimed their lives without a scratch. People that we thought had an incurable disease will just go to the doctor one day and find that the illness is completely gone and they are not sure how.

He wants people to forget everything that they know and drop all the knowledge that they learned through experience, school, and mentors. I don’t see how anyone could actually cut all the strings of their mind to start fresh on an issue. The First Meditation discusses how we can become alien with something over time. Even if it is something as familiar as our hands that we use to complete tasks every day. If we focus on the idea that the hand is alien then it will eventually look and feel completely alien to us. He also talks about how dreams can feel real as well. I agree with him on how he describes dreams as almost real yet they can become very unfamiliar. Dreams can be so familiar and people, places, and things that we see everyday usually appear in them. But dreams also can feature unfamiliar people and places and even events sometimes. I feel that we have yet to truly understand dreams and where they come from exactly.

Descartes seems to do a complete turnaround in the Second Meditation. He starts to experiences many doubts. The paragraph starts out with “The Meditation yesterday has filled my mind with so many doubts.” He compares his fall to being trapped in deep water and that he cannot touch the bottom or simply float on the water. His moment of doubt only seems to last for a few paragraphs. He seems to finally come to a conclusion in section 6 of the Second Meditation when he states that he is a “thinking thing.” He lists what a thinking thing does and states that we have thoughts and doubts and feelings and we can refuse and have denial and agree. He just lists all of these amazing things that we, as people and thinking things, can do and will do. He also says in the tenth section that our minds do wander and allow us to come up with many ideas, true or untrue. I like how he concludes that we should just leave our minds to wander.

I’m not sure if I have this right or not, but I would like to think that maybe I understood just a little bit of it. And I feel like I just wrote a novel so I guess I need to work on that. At least I know that I made it through my first blog! =)

P.S. I commented on Amy Smith’s post.

Edwards...

I had to reread Descartes but still did not comprehend much of what he was saying; so I chose to write about Edward's Sermons. The section in Edward's Sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God really got to me. "God's creatures are good, and were made for men to serve God with, and don't willingly subserve to any other purposes so directly contrary to their nature and end." For some reason it never occurred to me that every little thing was made to serve God. But, we ultimately use things God created to sin against Him. However, we don't have to necessarily worry like Edward states, "...you are thus in the hands of an angry God; 'tis nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting destruction..." God's love for us saves us from our great sin on this earth.

Paradoxicalness

"Well it seems I've finally thought of everything.
I wanna love, I wanna feel, find peace, find the real."
-Find the Real, Alter Bridge

SO, at long last, I can blog on this site! YAY. Of course, what's the point? This blog isn't real, so why did I even care? I mean, the internet isn't even tangible save for the world of TRON, but we make the biggest deal about posting on this blog. You know what, everyone, forget about it, because this blog does not exist and is not trustworthy, we should not even think about it or make an attempt to be successful on it.

Seriously, though, as a councilman, you have to do it.

SERIOUSLY, trying to percieve everything as being capable of not even existing is not just daring, its dangerous. If you are really going to doubt everything as being untrustworthy and incapable of belief, you risk tearing away the fabric of everything you see around you. As far as I can tell, trying to find God in doubt like Descartes suggests we do would be maddening! Yes, God is trustworthy and the source of all trust, but can we not trust that the world around us is concrete? Yes, it is a broken and fallen world, full of deceptions and lies, but is not also possible that the world is not fooling us, but we are fooling ourselves? How many times do we let our own perceptions of what we want and need and what is good come in contrast with the actual state of the world, which, in turn, causes us to fall into despair and question our existence as meaningful?

Furthermore, for a man who claims to believe in God and seek His truth first, I find it quite arrogant to claim "I think, therefore I am" as the primary proof of existence and truth. Jesus preached quite often on the concept of faith and sought to remedy the problem of doubt that so often turns us away from belief in the divine. It almost seems heretical for Descartes to argue that doubt can actually lead us to faith instead of driving us all into nihilistic madness. Still, I guess that's the point of the rational age-throw away convential wisdom and drive ahead with new thoughts on how to be human (not necessarily including belief in God). Like the song above, I can see how Descartes' ideas on finding truth and rethinking existence are quite powerful and influential, but I must myself think just how deep one's mind can go into itself before realizing there is no longer any light in the cave.

Well, those are my own meditations, hope they're worth reading. Feel free to comment with praise, questions, or criticisms as you see fit. BTW, I posted on Kelsey Parrish's blog. However, Blogspot has decided not to let me comment on said blog, so here is my comment in full.

Good on you for being able to follow Descartes' train of though, it's not an easy thing to do. Theologians and thinkers have tried for centuries to be able to logically prove the existence of God through thought and reason, while the Bible states that the universe itself is evidence of God's truth and majesty. Still, such notions are irrelevant in the face of thinkers like Hawking and Dawkins, people whose mindset comes from this same era of thinking and have theories that claim just the opposite. So the question becomes "do I have faith or do I have doubt?" Descartes obviously responds "why not have both, you can't have one without the other!" Of course that's just another way that Descartes overthrows common thought patterns and perceptions-he's quite good at doing that. Good blog, Kelsey, look forward to reading from you again! 8)

Doubting. Doubting

First of all, I too, would like to say, I have missed these blogs! I love getting to write down the thoughts I have after reading through the pages of our honors experience and I love getting to interact and see the thoughts of my fellow honorees ( haha yes I know, honorees is not a word… or is it? ;p) but anyways, reading the first paragraph of Decartes got me excited!  I liked the following phrase I ran across when reading this: “For since faith is a Gift of God, the same being who bestows grace to enable us to believe other things, can likewise impart of it to enable us to believe his own existence.” I have actually been thinking a lot about faith and have recently learned what and where faith comes from. So, according to Decartes, faith is a gift from God and therefore by faith, we can believe in God’s existence.  Decarte, however, I find very interesting because of his system of thought process, his thinking, his doubt all to find truth. I find it very comforting to know that Decarte went through a process of doubt about everything he knew or thought he knew about Christ and the soul and body. I used to think doubt was a bad thing. Is it? I feel like being able to stop and rethink the things we already know is good for helping the individual grow in their beliefs or what they used to believe in.

                It makes me feel better that Decarte doubted things but went through a process like systematic doubting. From experience, I have sat and wondered whether certain things were truly real or is it just us being used to thinking they were or do we really even exit? Of course we do have this sense of a higher power, we believe we do exist obviously, and therefore through our faith believe God does exist. I have had doubts about God but I have always reached the conclusion that He does, how else could we explain everything?

~Amy Smith~ (My name on here says “His Beloved” im sorry!)

P.s I commented on Amanda’s post!

WOAH

I very much enjoyed and had a much easier time reading Sermons: Sinners in the Hands of Angry God than when I read Descartes’ Meditations. I found it much easier to understand and also much easier for me to agree with. I know that if I had this sermon preached to me I would probably pee my pants. The descriptions are so detailed and vivid. When I read the following it set me back a little.

“The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood.”

I had read it over and over. I was like ”WOAH…” I know that every time I sin it hurts god and that it separates me from him, but I had never had it put into words like that before. If I sin against him and it makes him that angry and furious, then how much greater his love for me must be for him to kill his son instead of me. This passage both lifts me up to know how loving my god is, but also reminds me how imperfect I am.

-Samuel A. Oliver

P.S. I commented on Susan Berner’s post.

So, what I think is that...

I really hate picking something close to the beginning of the paper, I feel like people will think I didn’t read it all and I’m just picking something out of a beginning paragraph. Well, anyway, me and Descartes officially do not get along. I read all of it, and had to read super slowly just so I could process everything he was saying. It could just be me, but his wording just completely threw me off at times. I would read a sentence, then have to kind of think it over in my own words to completely understand what he’s saying, but then I’m afraid I’m missing something. It’s all super frustrating, BUT Lucy Beth gave me a thumbs up / hug yesterday so I can do this. (: Hahaa.

After I finished reading this I went over the synopses again, and the first one (again, I promise, I read them all) got me thinking.

“1. IN THE First Meditation I present the grounds on which we may doubt in general of all things, and especially of material objects, so long at least, as we have no other foundations for the sciences than those we have until now possessed. Now, although the utility of a doubt so general may not be manifest at first sight, it is nevertheless of the greatest, since it delivers us from all prejudice, and affords the easiest pathway by which the mind may withdraw itself from the senses; and finally makes it impossible for us to doubt wherever we afterward discover truth.”

To start off with, I thought he sounded strange when he said we have “grounds on which we may doubt in general of all things, and especially of material objects.” Why would we doubt something that is an object that we can see and hold?

He’s saying that we should doubt reality, that what we are looking at, might not actually be there, personally, I disagree. If I’m holding something in my hand, for example, a pencil, then it’s there. I can feel the weight, and I can’t push my finger through it, I mean, reality is, I have a stinking pencil in my hand! I don’t doubt that I’m currently wrapped up in my plush blanket because my roommate is hot and I’m freezing to death. I believe God put us on this Earth, with material things so we could live and worship him. I, personally, think Descartes was wrong. I don’t have or need a reason to doubt that what’s real is real. Reality, to me, is logical. I'm just a logical person.

Also, being logical gives less headaches, unlike Descartes, who must have had a twenty four seven migraine.


- Katina

The DesCarte reading totally blew my mind! It reminded me of a question my theatre teacher once put before my class in high school. Playing the devil’s advocate, he asked us if it was possible that we were a part of the world, and everything physical we know is real, but the people we know, our family, friends, teachers, classmates, and even those we dislike were only actors in a reality TV show. All the relationships we thought we had were fake and every moment of our lives was actually just being recorded for the entertainment of the rest of the world.

Things like this or the notion that everything we think is real doesn’t exist is very difficult for me to except. For example, I know that my parents are my parents because I have pictures, videos, and documents to prove that they are my real parents. However, even more importantly I love my parents and trust them, so it is nearly impossible for me to believe for even a moment that I am not actually their child. Also, I cannot think that my hand is not my hand. When I look at my hand I don’t think that it is someone else’s hand or even some kind of robotic extension of my body. When I cut my hand it bleeds and I feel it. I’m a very trusting person, so I believe everything that is around me, and even if everything around me wasn’t what it appears, I would rather be ignorant to the truth, because I am happy the way things are now.

I definitely liked reading “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” much more. I can understand the reading much easier and I love the description in the text and how in your face it is. The sermon makes me want to go read my Bible and pray for hours in order to avoid the horrible eternal agony that awaits many in hell. The emotion and desperation on Edward’s wording makes that reading much more interesting to me. For example, the passage on page 96 where Edwards says “The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given, and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose”. Or again on page 102 when he says “It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity: There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery: when you look forward, you shall see a long forever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul . . .” I think that those words speak volumes, and mean a lots to anyone who reads them, even if they are not religious.

-Susan

P.S. I commented on Meghan Johnston

Doubt Into Truth?

I agree with Kelsey's post. We have learned this Descartes way of thinking through each of our professors whether they truly support it or not. Talmage, of course, would love this week. I would dare say that this form of doubt is the extension of Plato himself, as he also enjoyed tearing these preconceptions down.

To reference Descartes again as saying, "just as if I had fallen all of a sudden into very deep water, I am so greatly disconcerted as to be unable either to plant my feet firmly on the bottom or sustain myself by swimming on the surface," reminds me of the condition of the human since sin. I believe that many, if not all, humans feel this throughout life, even if subconsciously. The form of doubt Descartes talks about is present in almost all thought, it has just been uncovered by Descartes himself. As an example, it is quite visible in atheism and skepticism, as they doubt the existence of God. Even in Christianity, too, is it evident that anything without foundation is doubted until proven. The degree of doubt varies, most certainly, but the fact that we each doubt something proves that Descartes has merely unveiled a process of the brain that can be both helpful and dangerous.

- Will

(Commented on Meghan's)

And so it begins.

       Brittany kind of stole my thunder a little bit, but that’s ok. This topic is perfect for Honors. This is really the philosophy that we use for everything in our classes no matter what the topic is. Our Honors moto is “Only what is won from the darkness will stand.” That means that we have to tear things down, doubt everything we have been taught, ask the questions that hurt, wrestle, struggle, suffer into truth. And you definitely will.

      With that being said, I feel that process is the main theme and objective of this text. DesCartes has gone through this process and in Meditation II, I feel like we find him at the end of his initial suffering and wrestling. He is at the absolute bottom and everything has been stripped away. He compares his situation to being “just as if I had fallen all of a sudden into very deep water, I am so greatly disconcerted as to be unable either to plant my feet firmly on the bottom or sustain myself by swimming on the surface.” Then his next step is to build up. He reaches the point where he wants and has such a desire to learn and to reach an end that it is all he wants. He has to see it through to completion. He says “I will always continue on this track until I shall find something that is certain, or at least, if I can do nothing more, until I shall know with certainty that there is nothing certain.”

      This is the thought process that will be used for everything this semester. DesCartes challenges us with this. It is not an easy thing to doubt everything. Thinking about the reasons why we believe something that we always have thought to be true isn’t at the top of most people’s favorite pastimes, but it is important. So I pass this challenge on to you and urge you to accept it. It is scary and hard, but it will be the most worthwhile endeavor you have ever done.

For a bit of nostalgia since our dear Mr. Crews is no longer posting, I will say it,

Dive Deep.
Drown Willingly.

Kelsey Moore

P.S. I commented on Brittany's post.

Question Everything?

Instead of assuming what he was told to be true, Descartes questioned it. He encourages us to doubt all things, so that we will be unbiased about how we think and not simply refer back to what we have been taught and what we think we know without even trying. He wipes his brain of everything he knows to be true, "I expound the grounds if all things, and especially of material objects, so long at least, as we have no other foundations for the sciences than those we have hitherto possessed." This doubt can unravel further and further until we wonder if anything actually exists or if it is just in our minds. However, we also doubt our minds.

I think that he is right in implying one should not just assume something is true because it is what we have always believed, but that we should think for ourselves. However, questioning everything causes our world to become virtual chaos and we need something or someone that we can rely on and hold to be true in the midst of it. If we trust God, who is always steady, whether people doubt Him or not, we can stay rooted.

PS- I commented on Chloe Rush

My Thoughts

A few days ago, I found myself in a zombie-like state of sleep deprivation, only mildly curtailed by the massive quantities of caffeine I had already consumed. This is the state in which I first attempted to read DesCartes. To be honest, I didn’t understand a single word. Sitting down to write this blog, I had every intention of writing on Edwards, but I just couldn’t allow myself to be entirely defeated. So even if I sound like a complete moron, and even if I still can’t grasp much past the first few pages, I’m a moron who, at least in her own mind, has accomplished something.

DesCartes begins by almost immediately stating his beliefs. He groups himself with the faithful, claiming that, for those who believe, proof of the existence of God is not needed because faith is sufficient. The problem is with those who don’t believe. Although it is clear to believers that God reveals himself through creation (Romans 1:20), some people still don’t believe, despite the evidence.

I imagine DesCartes began his thought process by asking himself the same question I often ask myself: How can someone come to believe in God despite having once believed He did not exist? I cannot recall a time in my life when I did not believe in God, therefore the very idea of atheism sounds strange and foolish to me. But if someone was never taught about God, or if he or she was told from a young age that God did not exist, my views probably seem just as, if not more foolish to that person.

So is it really a natural instinct of humanity to believe in, worship, and obey God? I believe so, because I have faith in God, and I believe the Bible to be true. I have also heard testimony of former atheists who also make this claim. But if this is the case, why are there still so many who don’t believe? Are only certain people drawn to God? (A question for another time, I suppose.) DesCarte’s idea of clearing his mind of all reality in order to “inquire how and by what way... God may be more easily and certainly known...,” is a fascinating one. However, I personally, and I may be the only one, don’t have enough faith in the power of my own mind to think that I could define existence from nothingness. Maybe I’m just simple-minded, but even though I keep seeking answers and truth, I am content in the idea that I don’t have the ability within myself to know all things.

P.S. I commented on Amanda Gaster's

Drowning in Words...

My first thought when I finished the assigned Descartes reading was, “I am so glad this guy finally figured out that he is in fact, alive, and he does exist.” But after class today, I am realizing that Descartes going through the long, tedious, seemingly random meditations had a distinct aim, which was “to discover only one thing that is certain and indubitable.” This seemed like something that would be easily done, so I rolled my eyes at Descartes’ ramblings. However, after being encouraged to doubt everything today in class, I somewhat followed his train of thought. When you begin to pry away preconceived notions and attempt to find a rational basis for everything that you simply accepted as truth before, reality becomes a bit hazy because the knowledge in your head is built on a foundation of those notions.

The only way it makes sense in my head is through the analogy in Meditation II. When you upset your world by doubting everything and accepting nothing at face value, it’s like doing somersaults in the deep end of the pool. You are constantly overturning normalcy and going in circles, which leads to disorientation until you no longer know what’s up and what’s down. You want to keep going down and see where you will end up and what makes the foundation, but at the same time you long for a breath of fresh air, a bit of reality to keep you from drowning. But what is reality? What is the truth? What are the facts? These thoughts run in circles in your head. Descartes has said the senses cannot be trusted, and indeed they sometimes deceive us, but if truth is not found in what we touch and see, then where is it? Eventually you pick a direction and start swimming, and if you break the surface you find yourself right back where you started, except you’re more confused because you still do not know on what this “reality” is founded. If you reach the bottom of the pool, you find something concrete on which you can place your feet and stand. This concrete attribute, according to Descartes, is thinking. This cannot be separated from yourself; it is the one and only thing intertwined with who you are. To doubt, to reason, to move, to suspect, to be certain, and to determine truth all require thinking. Descartes said, “If I should wholly cease to think, that I should at the same time altogether cease to be,” and I think he is right. Just for example, consider a nonresponsive person in a coma. They lack the ability to think and function, so although their physical bodies may be alive, they are not “living” as we know it. They are not thinking and experiencing life because the brain is not functioning. Back to the analogy, once this truth is made evident to the drowning, they have a firm surface to push off of and make their way back to the top. This time, as they emerge from the depths they see “reality” in a new light, and also God himself.

We were created as “thinking things,” and also at the core of that “thinking” we have the desire to be connected with something bigger than ourselves. This desire is subconscious but simply serves to point to the One who created us and put the initial “thoughts” in our head. So I think I see the point Descartes is making; we who think do exist although we may doubt everything around us. In the same way, although we may doubt God, He still does exist and makes himself known throughout the ages. Not just in stories and history, but also personally in the one thing you can call your own: your mind.

In My Opinion...

To be completely honest, I am more than a little nervous to be posting my thoughts on Descartes on this blog. I’ve never blogged in my life, and starting with something I barely understood, doesn’t seem like the best place to start, in my opinion that is. Honestly, I really didn’t understand much of what was said, though my copy of the reading has more yellow on it than white.

I think my biggest issue was the fact that Descartes seemed to go from a stand-point of saying that God undoubtedly existed, to a point where he was saying God was out to deceive us and wasn’t even real. If I misinterpreted that, please let me know because I really had trouble understanding it.

There was one part that I didn’t have as much trouble understanding, it came from Point 6 in his Second Meditation. He says, “I am—I exist: this is certain; but how often? As often as I think; for perhaps it would even happen, if I should wholly cease to think, that I should at the same time altogether cease to be.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but to me this statement seems very self-explanatory. And he’s right, when we cease to think, or when our brains cease to function, we don’t really exist, we become like vegetables. Without our brains functioning, we can’t, and don’t, do anything; we are reduced to relying on machines and doctors to keep us alive.

Maybe I’m looking at this all wrong, but this is what I was able to glean from my reading, which was laborious in-and-of-itself, but enjoyable none-the-less. I hope that I make sense and that as the year continues I will be able to pull more from our readings. I can’t wait to see what this next year holds, I’m absolutely certain it’s going to be awesome!

~Meghan Johnston

P.S. Commented on Brittany's post.

Questions that form questions that form questions...

Let me start off by saying like the others that DesCartes is very much like how the spirit of honors is described, and not just DesCartes, but the Enlightenment period as a whole. From the way the Enlightenment period was described, it was the beginning of people questioning things they had just believed their whole life, which is what honors seems like it is to me.

"and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation" (Meditation 1)

I can't form a full opinion on DesCartes' questioning on God and whether He deceives us, or if it's another force. However, I can understand where his questioning comes from. I have been studying a lot about Election/Reprobation, that sort of thing, and something that crosses my mind frequently and doesn't settle in my spirit is the idea that God places the desire of salvation in our hearts and that He doesn't in others. How did I arrive at that idea? Well, if God has an elect from the beginning of time, meaning that He knows from the beginning of time, and if He is in control of all things - does He control our thoughts? Shouldn't He if He were in control of all things? So I read DesCartes and I understand the questions he's asking. What if God created us to be deceived about all things? Isn't God supposed to work all things together for our good? However, if He is God, who sees the bigger picture, and defines what is good - wouldn't we have to declare what He has planned as good? Maybe our idea of good is false because if we were to think that something He has done were not good, we must be false. He is good, what He does is good, so if we disagree we must be misunderstanding.

"But perhaps Deity has not been willing that I should be thus deceived, for He is said to be supremely good. If, however, it were repugnant to the goodness of Deity to have created me subject to constant deception, it would seem likewise to be contrary to His goodness to allow me to be occasionally deceived; and yet is clear that this permitted."

(sidenote: Why is he referring to God as Deity? Is deity not the belief that you can earn a good after life? Maybe he just has an overall wrong picture of salvation. If that were the case, then my blog is pointless. haha.)

Then there's also the question: What if disbelief is not the goodness of God? What if we have the idea of deception from the evil one?

"I will suppose, then, not that Deity, who is sovereignly good and the fountain of truth, but that some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me."

I like the response that DesCartes has to all of this questioning though. He basically concludes that even if he never comes to an answer about life, if he never discerns between dreams and reality, then he shall abandon all his questions and continue to happily dream. It reminds me of when Job was arguing with his friends about the character of God and whether Job deserved all this, and there comes a point in chapter 13 where Job just simply says, "Be quiet and I will speak. Let whatever comes happen to me. Why do I put myself at risk and take my life in my own hands? Even if He kills me, I will hope in Him." vs. 13-15.

There comes a point at the end of the questioning, and even DesCartes did this, where we must stop and resolve to just have faith, to hope in something greater than we can understand.  There is a part of me that rejects all of the questioning I have, because unlike DesCartes I do not put full trust in the human mind. How dare we assume that our simple minds can understand the lofty things of God? Even though I question and I think things over and over, at the end of the day, the things I question, the things I imagine do not define who I am. The things I imagine do not define my faith either. I know that God is good, that He has been good to me, and if I never understand the deeper questions, then I shall do like Billy Graham and teach Christ on a 3rd grade level, and that will be that.

There are a few other things that came to mind while I was reading this that don't really have anything to do with my blog, but I was wondering what others' opinions were.
Because the Enlightenment period is when people began to question and go against the general idea, is this period when the first declared atheists came about?

Also, why doesn't DesCartes believe in putting a period at the end of a thought, instead of just adding a comma and keep going! When I first started reading I was like, "Why didn't you put a period there, your idea just ended, this is a new one!!" I was quite frustrated.

 commented on Meghan's

Only what is Won....

I have missed these Honors blogs. I mentioned in Rachel's post how I also felt Descartes' Meditations to be the perfect starter for Honors Seminar, but I wanted to go on about it a little more, among other things. Descartes was truly an Honors student. He took some things that had previously been dealt with and wrestled through them himself. he was not satisfied with the easy answers he had gotten from others. He is truly taking on the persona of a seeker and wrestling through truth, suffering, in hopes to find something beautiful. He has shown a beautiful picture of the Spirit of Honors.

One of my weak points is Math- mostly because it is an absolute and no matter what 2+2 always = 3.... I mean 4. :) Anyway, my example makes more sense in regards with higher Math because of the fact that I am always asking "Why?" "Why does it have to be this way? "Because that's just the way it is." Doesn't sit right in my head. I think this is how Descartes feels as he wrestles through his points in his Meditations.

One can see his progressiveness throughout the writings- traveling from considering himself to not be a real thing all the way to his consideration of being a 'thinking thing", and so on.
To be honest, sometimes I just wanted him to spit it out- but, I know all to well about this wrestling thing. Sometimes you have to form the question in all kinds of ways to get an answer to take you somewhere else. He definitely progresses, thankfully.

Some of his thoughts are very "Enlightenment period-like." In my copy of the text there are several instances where I wrote "Matrix much?" in my notes. As we learned in class, many of the ideas that came to form things such as the Matrix came from this period. He also says some things that take me back into The Cave with Plato. I also found some things that reminded me of Aquinas and immovability. Ah! I have so many interesting things in this!

One conclusion he made that I'll highlight was that there must be some "malignant force" which is causing these doubts in his mind. In response he says something very powerful. "...let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so as long as I shall be conscious that I am something." WOW- how profound? The enemy can deceive, lie, and tell you all he wants that you are nothing- but as long as we hold fast to the truth we have in God's words and listen to what HE says about us, we can never be destroyed- perhaps struck down, but never destroyed.

One last thing to consider. In working with people in different faiths, or just people who want to argue, you will often hear the argument of "Nothing can ever be certain," "Everything is relative, there is no one way to God," 'Everyone has an idea of truth inside of them- and if everyone follows and peruses their idea of truth, they will be okay," blah, blah, blah.... This is one of the things that I can see Descartes is struggling through. Absolutism. Things like... If I consider my body, my movement, and and all things regarding myself as relative then I myself must be relative and therefore nothing... then how is it it that they can be perceived? If I can be perceived then, I must infact be something. Furthermore, if I am something then what kind of something am I? Because I can perceive myself I must be a perceiving or a thinking thing... you heard this exchange.... it's what I like to call the 'truth talk'- and I'll summarize it in this way: If everything is relative, nothing is an absolute. But by making that statement you have therefore made an absolute statement... so you have just voided your previous statement of there being nothing absolute by making an absolute.

PHEEEEW.

That's all for today kids. happy blogging. I love y'all a lot! I hope we get some good discussions going on this blog! Freshies- DON'T be overwhelmed- I promise we returning Sophomores were in the exact same place as you! :)

-Comment on Rachel's

My Point of View...

I would have to say I am in disagreement with several things Descartes had to say. First off, in God’s existence, it is about relationship, not religion. As Descartes specifically called it in his second point, on the first page. The next subject I have to disagree with him on, has to do with him referencing the fact that he believes God is trying to deceive him. His words specifically were, “Although he who gave me being employed all his ingenuity to deceive me?” God is not the author of confusion, He is abundantly clear in His word about this. Lastly, I disagree with how much authority he is giving to the mind. Man is fallible. We prove this in our own lives. How many of us can make a 100% on every test we will ever take or never say anything that would hurt friends and family. These are just some of the small arguments to support the fact that man is fallible.
There is a point, if I did not misread, I did agree with: “And as regards the Soul, although many have judged that its nature could not be easily discovered, and some have even ventured to say that human reason led to the conclusion that it perished with the body, and that the contrary opinion could be held through faith alone.” It is faith alone that can hold to the belief that the soul does not parish. I am uncertain if he believes this fact. But it is Biblical that Salvation is obtained by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
One thing that seems to be sad, is the fact that he spent his life’s work trying to prove the existence of God, or at least that is what has been relayed by other means, but because of his wordiness in this work, that is not the impression I was under and it is likely that he is misread and misinterpreted by others as well.
~Joy Vigneulle~
PS - Rachel Kotlan

First Blog (:

First off, DO NOT be scared to write on the blog! I remember being really intimidated of sharing my thoughts like this because then people could read it and argue with me or something. So do not be afraid! Whatever you write will be great! And if its not....well, i hadn't thought about that...

just kidding! You will all write awesome stuff as long as you follow the guidelines Lucy and Will explained to the class!

As I read Descartes again I was struck by his willingness and further his deep desire to question. We spoke in class about the enlightenment and it's change on ideas that started to bring about an individualistic and inquisitive spirit and this piece definitely is a prime example as he questions his very existence. In my anatomy class we are covering the history of the science of a&p. (bear with me English kids) Dr. Swiger mentioned that the author blames the stagnation of science and development solely on the church. (I suddenly felt like I was in honors because this deep thought lingered with me all day)

When glancing at the scientists like Galen (one of the great contributors to a&p) we find that although he encourages students and readers of his atlas (basically a map of the body) to be inquisitive and search out truth (much like Descartes' investigation into reality) his books were taught dogmatically and teachers strongly discouraged the spread of new ideas or the testing of new ideas. We may scoff at this idea because everyone who graduated high school and took science knows that scientists are constantly coming up with and disproving their own theories... So who's fault was it that people neglected to seek out truth for themselves? An exterior force like the church making rules or an inside lack of that spark or curiosity and hunger for more? It is a difficult question not easily answered and one that Descartes brought me back to while reading his Meditations. I really think that this reading from Descartes is a perfect way to begin honors, questioning our surroundings and really diving deeply into philosophy.

"In philosophy, on the other hand, where it is believed that all is doubtful, few sincerely give themselves to the search after truth, and by far the greater number seek the reputation of bold thinkers by audaciously impugning truths as are of the greatest moment."

In this class and in our lives we cannot be afraid to question people who we may think are better than us our have more knowledge. The great men who brought their world into the enlightenment were unafraid to question those things which their solid foundation of believes rested on, and not so they could discard them. As they sought they were able to encourage others also to look beyond the obvious and find answers for themselves.

Rachel Kotlan