Thus after reading this statement I have to ask myself, and any others who would like to follow my inquisition; Is this logic sound? The idea that just because we exist, other things within the world must also exist? I will return to the ever-popular dream argument to properly formulate my question. I do not claim that this is the truth or even that Descartes is false in his assumption, rather I am merely placing forth a suggestion, which I see as a possible counter to his assumption.
Through Descartes' reasoning we have found that it is impossible to question whether or not the "thought" [us existing through our doubt] exists. Yet our thoughts exist in our dreams as well. My idea is such that I believe that it is just as likely that we, as systems of thoughts, exist independent of the world of which we experience, instead we [as thoughts] exist on a higher plane of existence (as it couldn't be lower, which I will explain- again using Descartes own reason). When addressing the expressive world in which we "live," I would offer that it is the product of a massive corresponding dream of which we all [as thoughts in another plane of existence] take part in. In this way we all act as 'one' by giving up our isolated systems of thought and uniting under this one system of thought [the dream] and allowing ourselves to exist temporarily within its laws and rules.
This also would explain the existence of 'God' not as some almighty being, but rather the power of thoughts combining and working together in order to create a 'dreamscape' for our thoughts to interact within. Thus we are all actually [as thoughts] acting jointly as 'God'. Yet for any of this to happen, we would have to exist on a higher plane than the one in which we currently allow ourselves to reside, because nothing of lesser quality can create something of higher quality.
This idea also gives way to the possibility that there are infinite possibilities of alternate realities created by the adjoining of other thoughts in a higher plane under a different thought system. This would account for the seemingly unending creativity locked within the 'human' imagination. The imagination being a key into the vast memories of our immortal thought [or soul, if that seems like a better word for our higher existing selves].
I believe Colin raises a great argument regarding this statement. I myself am confused at Descartes logic. In Third Meditations, Descartes makes it clear that avoiding the error of believing our ideas as humans, or systems of thought as Colin puts it, are comformable to those outside of ourselves will steer our minds in the right direction. He states, "But the principal and most common error which can be encountered here consists in judging that the ideas which are in myself are simiar to, or comformable to, things outside of myself..." (94). I am, therefore, slightly confused when he concludes, upon reaffirming his own existence, that nature then is true. I believe our relationship as humans between nature rests at a foundational level. We may not understand things in nature but feel convinced that we actually do, just as we are convinced of things within ourselves that are in fact doubtful and uncertain. Essentially, God is hovering above both humans and nature (I thought of a pyramid). He instilled in us things that can't be explained through reason however gave us the ability to think about the world in which we inhabit. On a more fundamental level, we as humans are finite and so is nature (if I am not mistaken) where God is infinite and ultimately in control.
ReplyDeleteUnless I am mistaken, I think that Descartes himself in using the example of his assumption that because we exist, nature exists is trying to show that he make a risky error in judgment. This example is given to show that the reason we are not perfect though creted by a perfect God is that because he has given us free will. He himself states that he does "not yet know of any argument to convince [him] of one possibility rather than the other." (114) So he is not saying for certain that nature does exist because we exist, but, rather, that he is capable of error and did make an error in putting faith in "a great inclination of [his] will" (114).
ReplyDeleteHowever, in addressing your separate point that we might in fact exist on a higher plane, I would assert that evidence that our thoughts are connected to nature lies in the fact that our bodies exist in nature and our thoughts govern our bodies. I would also assert that it would be highly implausible to say that we individual, thinking humans could participate in the same dream-reality. We could be all participating in our own individual dreams, but I think the fact that we communicate and that life does not always go as we might hope shows that we exist in the same world which is not a dream-like plane on which we exist, but in a separate reality. Think how difficult it is to not often daydream and detatch oneself from reality. How then would we "give up our own isolated systems of thought"? If we did, we would not be able to prove even that we exist. (I think=I am)
An interesting discussion. I'd just like to add one note, in regard to the passage Colin quoted in his post. The phrase "what I conceived so clearly" at the end of the passage refers back to the certainty "that I myself existed" and not to the claim that "anything in the world existed." Descartes has not yet (in the 4th Meditation) built a bridge back to the external world; before he can do that, he will need to discover something within material bodies that can be known "clearly and distinctly"--and that does not happen until the 6th Meditation.
ReplyDelete