I am sure that what I talked about at the end of last post are real experiences with God. However, if I like Descartes (today's title comes from Descartes' Meditations) so much, it's certainly fair to ask, "How can you be sure? Could it not be a psychological illusion? Or, to use Descartes' own example, couldn't it be a powerful evil demon fooling you?" Well, I will start with an axiom: "That which I perceive does, to some extent, represent reality." I know that Descartes does not take advantage of such an axiom, but I've read only summaries of the Meditations (I plan to remedy this soon, but the Meditations are not light reading, and I wish to be able to take my time with them), so I don't understand how he overcomes the general objection of the evil demon and cannot decide whether his proof is valid. Furthermore, I believe that from a utilitarian standpoint my axiom must be considered as true (whether proven true, as Descartes suggests, or taken as an axiom): for if we have no faith in any perception (sensory or otherwise), how shall we ever decide anything or act in any way? I could say considerably more on the subject, but that will probably be left to another post, and let it suffice for the time being to say that decision making is impossible without any input through perception (if you know a way around this, I'd love to hear it). I shall therefore take as the threshold defining "to some extent" for my axiom to be that my sensory perceptions are approximately valid, a single event of sensory perception establishing that which I have perceived to greater than 90% certainty (90% is an arbitrary figure here, but I believe it to be simultaneously conservative--I don't think my eyes trick me more than 10% of the time--and sufficient to establish reality--in part because things are often attested to many times--and anyway, the exact figure does not matter from here on out, but simply illustrates that we can give a figure which is simultaneously conservative and establishes reality).
In this case, the question to be posed is whether there is any sort of perception to which I may attribute my knowledge of God. Well, yes. In a literal sense, by His communicating with me. This I perceive quite literally in my own self: using poetic or scriptural language, in my mind and heart. I certainly perceive something which is beyond myself, though this perception is different from sensory perception in the sense that I am not the primary active agent, as I may be argued to be in the case of sensory perception (actually, it may be more accurate to say that sensory perception is also passive, as our eyes do not actively bring light into them, but passively absorb light from our surroundings; but argue as you wish, whether the senses are active or passive, it does not matter for my purposes today). This does not address the psychological argument, and so you may ask, "Is this, which you call the Spirit, not merely an emotional response?" I respond that it is not, but you may certainly press the issue, so now I'll have to explain more about these experiences.
Let me note that it is extremely distinctive. It is simply not like any emotion, so if it is simply an internal emotion then it is a unique one. The fact is that I cannot simply call it love (I have been in love before, and it is not just this), or calm (I have certainly been calm), or happiness (I have been happy before), or any other single emotion that I have experienced separate from this. In fact, it is all of these and more: love, peace, and joy, yes, but there is more to it than that.
First, there is a sensation which I have never heard described better than as "light." This is perhaps the most distinctive bit, but by its distinctive nature I am afraid that I am completely unable to convey it in words, because usually we describe sensation and perception in terms of comparisons. If this seems like a cop-out, then describe the taste of salt, or the color yellow, or joy without comparison or contrast with something else. If you can, then I hope that you have this kind of spiritual experience: you'll communicate it better than me, that's for certain. Regardless, the point stands that it is distinctive, so that I may say what is and is not an experience of this type.
Further, from the first time that I (somewhat unexpectedly) had this very distinct impression of light, I knew, quite simply, two things: that it was God, and that what I was saying at that moment was true. This brings us to the second, and related, observation: with this sense of "light" there is always conveyed truth, knowledge. Intelligence is always communicated. Occasionally it is simply certainty, but most often there is further insight, direction, or clarity of understanding. This is interesting, and I will have to come back to it later. However, it seems that the "certainty" part is at the heart of the questions for now, so that will be my starting point for next time.
Title: Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation 1
No comments:
Post a Comment