In Part 4 of Meditation, the Meditator explains that the he is between God and nothingness. He says that God is a perfect and infinite being, but created him to be a finite being. So although he does share some perfection with God, he also shares nothingness.
He goes on to say that if God is perfect, he should be able to create perfect beings and thinks that if God always does what is best, why not make it so humans were never wrong? He quickly dismisses this thought and says that since we are imperfect and finite beings, we could never understand the will of a supreme being like God.
The idea that we could never understand God's will isn't a new idea. It's been around for centuries and I've personally always found it amusing. Whenever somebody questions the actions of "God" it always seems to be the same idea that you shouldn't question God because you would never be able to understand his ways. I think the Catholic Church just says this so they never have to explain anything lol.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think an interesting question to ask here is that, even though man is finite, is it possible that God could've created him to be infinite? I think that The nature of any creature ( created being, as opposed to a creator) is necessarily finite simply because creatures are no the foundation of their own existence. What I mean is that, although a creature could theoretically be flawless and in that sense be perfect, a creature is never the foundation or source of its own existence. Because of that, a creature's power and faculty of reason are both derived from its creator. In that sense it is impossible that a creature be infinite.
It certainly is a convenient explanation for them, still doesn’t get you anywhere. I also don't know where he gets the concept of nothingness; I mean I’ve never experienced that before. He also mentioned in i think it was the discourse part 5 that the soul is immortal so why doesn’t he say that his body is finite?
ON millers comment: To say that is to assume that god did create them and would then hold true for all but god, which i find to be awkward. I see no reason why something in existence can't be self actualizing. Also if god created it then is that thing not god if only a different expression of god's infinite possible expressions. What I am asking is how one can separate one self from god?
To Maute: You make a good point here; it seems somewhat contradictory of Descartes to say that we are finite beings, but then say our souls are separate from our bodies and infinite. And to address "nothingness"; I'm not sure if I understand this idea correctly either. I think he is trying to find the median between God's infinity and being nothing, but I don't know if it's possible to be "nothing" because if you're nothing how can you "be"?
To Miller: Well according to Descartes, it is possible for God to create an infinite being, but the question is why wouldn't he? Apparently, we're not allowed to ask because we can't understand God's will, haha. This is my problem with this argument. He says its possible to create and infinite being that would not make errors in judgment, which seems like the "all-good" thing to do and since God is "all knowing, all good, all powerful, etc." shouldn't this be something God should be doing? So it goes to the argument of either God is not all powerful or all good since we do make mistakes and are finite beings.
To Rizzo:
Like I said above, even if God created a creature that was perfect in every way, it could not be infinitely powerful, because the power it has would be solely derived from its creator, and would only be its own insofar as it has been given power. It is impossible that any created being be al-powerful, because that would be to assume that it has power over its own existence, which is clearly not the case if it owes its existence to something other than itself.
To Maute:
You keep on using this term "self-actualizing", which you have yet to explain or define. All I can get from it is that you are saying that something comes from nothing, which is a contradiction. You should elaborate on that so that your point is clearer. Also, it is simple to separate one self from God: I am a created being and God is uncreated.Its as simple as that. God's existence is eternal, that is, he always has existed and always will. Our existence is not eternal- we owe our existence to something prior to ourselves (whether that be our parents or whether we want to trace it all the way back to God makes no difference), which means that we have not existed forever.
To Miller: Yes, I suppose you're right (as usual). I still don't like his argument though lol.
What you got from self-actualizing is exactly what i meant. The only thing that is self-actualizing is god. To be self-actualizing/self-dependant would equal god.
What does it mean to be created, what are you created from? I cannot comprehend how something could be created from nothing but that the only explanation i can give to god.So, I can do nothing but assume god created me from something whether that be a thought or something else either way I would still be god, as I am then an expression of him. How can you say that you are not the entirety of your thoughts/memories? If god created another perfect being there would still be only one god because they are the same thing. Summarizing question: how do you separate the creator from the created?
To Maute:
Okay, I see what you mean by self-actualizing, and I agree that the term can onlybe applied to God. Here is why human beings are neither God nor self-actualizing: You, unlike God, do depend on something other than yourself for existence. You were born to your parents, so you are not self-actualizing, nor were they, for they were also born to parents who were also dependent on parents, and so on. You can trace this back to God if you want, but the reason that we are not self-actualizing is because of what creation is. Creation is a separation from the creator, otherwise we wouldn't need to use the word 'creation' to signify such an act. If all were really God, then there would have been no creation. As it is, you and I and every other created being depend on God's creation for our existence. In this we are not like God, because God is uncreated and so doesn't depend on anything called 'creation' for his own existence, no matter what you may mean by creation.
"How can you say that you are not the entirety of your thoughts/memories?. . .how do you separate the creator from the created?" Your question is an awesome one though, and very difficult to answer. I don't understand how something can be created from nothing, but the very act of creation, the finitude and imperfection of human reality, and our lack in almost every aspect of our being, points me to posit 'creation' as an act of separation from the creator. If we were really God, or part of him, then he would be corrupt and imperfect, and therefore not God. That is the best answer I have, not a perfect one, but think that there's something to be said about it.
I would say that the term creation simply refers to something new. I don't get why it would have to refer to a seperation.
I taked about lack and perfect in other threads so i'll give a short hand here (weird expression w/e). perfect = paradox; lacking = non-existant.
Maute:
Perfection only seems paradoxical to you because you embrace contradictions, i.e. that God can create a being greater than himself- which would mean that there is something more perfect than God, which would mean that God actually isn't perfect, which would be a contradiction. I agree that lack is non-existence, but it is not simply a nothingness, it is a nothingness within something.
Yeah, because contradiction lifts any kind of limit on god. If god created a more perfect being than himself he would have then made god, the more perfect one is now a more perfect expresion of god makeing the new god the god.
Lacking = nothing within a something, I don't think we've ever experienced a void of any kind anywhere. I think dark matter and dark energy fill everything we might perceive as a void, but it’s not an actual void. Still can't observe nothing though so I guess its possible being that it’s not falsifiable.
oh, and what do you think of my definition of creation in my last comment?
Post a Comment