Their truth is so open and so much in accord with my nature that, when I first discover them, it seems I am not so much learning something new as recalling something I knew beforehand. In other words, it seems as though I am noticing things for the first time that were in fact in me for a long while, although I had not previously directed a mental gaze upon them. (Meditation 5, AT 64)
This passage reminds me of Plato's Meno, which demonstrates that certain knowledge is innate and can be recollected via inquiry. I fully support both Plato and Descartes in their beliefs that there are certain ideas that have not been fabricated but rather "have their own true and immutable natures," but am wondering if this is a sound argument for the existence of God (AT 64). I understand how it applies to and works for the idea of a triangle or some other mathematical figure. The nonexistence of such things is impossible; one cannot even attempt to disprove their nature. The existence of God, however, is an argument that has taken many forms and resulted in varied conclusions. I am having trouble determining whether this approach is strong enough to support such a claim. Is this something that each individual clearly and distinctly knows, as Descartes argues?
No comments:
Post a Comment