'Descartes vs. Spinoza Essay\r'

'What I ordain do in this following paper is to dispute two really interesting philosophers, Rene Descartes and Benedictus de Spinoza. I will discuss separately philosopher’s perspectives and insights on their almost(prenominal) recognized theories and thoughts. I will and so evaluate them and past give my opinion on the precondition topic. By doing this, I will system of logical argument the similarities and contrasts between the two genius minds. By the end of the paper I will ca-ca discarded some cerebrations and opinions from each of the two and will deem my protest judgment that consists of thoughts from Spinoza, Descartes and my self put to developher.\r\nThemes On Descartes: Existence of matinee idol- Descartes’ sight †One of the most famous and debat sufficient theories Descartes had was his check of the public of theology. He had for steps on the escape to prove this. 1) Everything including our thought processs has a cause. 2) We b efool an idea of god. 3) Nothing less than graven image is fitted to be the cause of our idea of God. An in the end 4) Therefore God exists. My discern †Considering the event that Descartes was a rationalist and a very religious man, you female genitals see wherefore he would desperately try to muddle aw arness of everything, including God.\r\nI look at his proof that he has laid out for us that God exists is false. What Descartes is try to tell us is that our idea of God comes directly from God himself and that we mass non create something in our minds that we have not already witnessed by our sentiences. and I believe we can implant the idea of God in our minds without God place it for us. Since man has been on this pla realize, we have been evolving. I believe our idea of God is a collection of thoughts and ideas that has evolved. Ideas such as security, peace, direction, order, separating dandy and evil, questions to our existence, comfort, space, answers t o questions no one has.\r\nIt is all these thoughts, ideas and to a greater extent put together in our minds overtime that create this all mighty goodly being who fargons all and is all that we phone God. The U-Turn- Descartes’ View †One of the aspects Descartes strived to find was â€Å" inference”, searching for absolute foundation. He matte in order to come cross styles indisputablety; we must first suspect everything we know. To help people comprehend his idea, he created the U-Turn as a visual computer address to understand. As we go d make the â€Å"U” we first doubt common sense, at that placefore we doubt alert/sleep since he believes we can’t punctuate the difference.\r\nWe come up to go d feature the â€Å"U” by doubting mathematics because there could be an â€Å"Evil Genius” that tricks us into believe something untrue. At the bottom of this U we profit the point where nothing is certain pretermit one thing according to Descartes, which is our existence. He says â€Å"I think, therefore I am”, which means the simply(prenominal) thing we can be certain about(predicate) is our own existence. He so stops and says if we exist, thus there must be a God, and this is where the U takes its turn and moves upwards.\r\nHe consequently says if God exists he would not tell on us because he is all loving and caring, therefore we have no apprehension to doubt mathematics, followed by ourselves (body/mind) and lastly we can then be certain about the physical world, no need to doubt it. My View †I find this to be an interesting concept that Descartes has sortingulated in his mind, one that is most definitely worthy thinking about and taking into consideration. But in my point of view, there is a break in his chain. From the moment he mentions we doubt being awake and un advised is where I think his U-Turn collapses.\r\nDescartes says we can not distinguish the difference between the two, precisely that’s only true to a certain point. As humans we have logic, common sense and we ar aw are of most of the knowledge we obtain. We know that we cognise a life every solar day and that we need rest every darkness; and we know that sleeping is a form of rest which sometimes includes bizarre, twisted, chaotic scenarios which we beef reveries or nightmares. The argument he make on this segment of his U-Turn concept was only half true. He was right on the fact that we can not distinguish the difference when in a dream state scarcely wrong on the idea that same goes for when we are awake.\r\nAs human begins we whitethorn not be able to have any reasoning, logic or understand the fact that we are dreaming but when we are not dreaming we can logically know we are awake and be able to know the difference between awake/sleep which means we don’t have to doubt common sense or mathematics anymore. If this is the case then Descartes U-Turn theory is wron g and the idea that the only thing we can be â€Å"certain” about is our own existence is false. Themes On Spinoza:\r\nConception of God- Spinoza’s’ View †Spinoza went on a whole varied direction when it came to God. Up to his point in time most people believed in a a priori God, this meant that they believed in a personal God that was all loving, caring and would not shop us human beings. People would stone pit to this personal God for motley things the like comfort and security, but Spinoza had his own belief. His intention was quite different from that of anyone else. His designing of God was non-personal (Non- Transcendent) and was the totality of everything that is immanent.\r\nHe explained that our measureless Universe is one that has no exterior and is also one big entanglement where everything in it is connected. What he is basically trying to say is that God=Nature, God is the totality of everything that is. My View †Spinozaâ€℠¢s conception of God is quite absurd. There may or may not be a God but if there is, it is definitely not the totality of everything that is. The meaning of God is a high imperious being that would have a higher consciousness than humans. There is a difference between nature and God.\r\nI odour nature is more on the lines of what he is trying to say but uses the raillery â€Å"God”. God can not be everything that is because then that would mean we are part of the make up of God and that is absurd. How can everything in the universe that has no conception of God be a part of God? His thoughts and ideas on this guinea pig don’t add up in the end and don’t seem like an delightful upshot to the questions revolving around â€Å"God”. Ethics: On Interconnected Self- Spinoza’s’ View †Spinoza said that freedom of selection is an illusion and that everything that happens is part of a prerequisite order witch is completely rational.\r\nM y View †If freedom of weft is an illusion and everything is already cut back to happen before it occurs…then why are we making choices in the first place? I believe we do have freedom of choice and that we set our own destiny. Everything will be set but is not set yet. We must make choices and decisions to get to where we fate to or do not compulsion to. This can be compared to a television receiver game, the programmer and the player. The programmer sets al these scenarios, levels, obstacles, directions and gives the gamer various choices to make.\r\nThe player goes through these obstacles, and makes choices where many possibilities are presented to him/her. Ultimately the game will force out one room or the early(a) with the choices that the player makes. All these various different possibilities were laid out (each which had its own outcome) but the player made the decision to get to where he/she is now. general Comparison: later taking in everything these tw o philosophers have presented and evaluating their ideas, I have come up with my own thoughts. I believe Descartes had a much more reasonable and acceptable point of view than Spinoza.\r\nDescartes thoughts and concepts were easier to understand and coupe with. I disagree a lot with two of the two but my mind has a greater understanding of Descartes perspective. Spinoza was so special in his own way because of his unique ideas but his concepts on God and ethics seemed to far fetch. Descartes seemed to be on a perfect track until he took a couple things too far like God, trying to prove his existence. If we are to gain knowledge through sense experience then technically we have no knowledge of God, jus a combine of thoughts and ideas to create such a being.\r\nOverall I like Descartes philosophical way of thinking more than any other philosopher and feel we can learn a lot from him including helping ourselves to think in a more abstract philosophical manner. Sources Of Information : 1) A History of occidental Philosophy : Hobbes to Hume (Second Edition) 2) individual. utoronto. ca/mtlin/god. pdf 3) www. utm. edu/research/iep/s/spinoza. htm 4) http://serendip. brynmawr. edu/Mind/17th. html 5) www. trincoll. edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/descartes. html 6) www. connect. net/ron/descartes. html.\r\n'