It is when a scholar or philosopher admits something like this, and really means it, that I warm up to them.

There is indeed an endearing quality to the human condition, in that we find ourselves here on earth, bumbling along, doing the best we can, whilst during times of reflection we think, "What the hell are we doing here? What is this all about?"

Descartes' remark sums up the human condition, openly, honestly, even uncomfortably. Yet there is a glimmer of hope to his words, a glimmer that we can all relate to at times, and which refuses to go away. It is this glimmer that makes our hearts yearn, which inspires a sense of wonder and awe toward the whole of Creation. A glimmer of hope which makes the Angels beckon, and the Creator satisfied in the knowledge that the gift of hope given to humanity is priceless indeed.

Having knowledge of the strictness and the influence of the Catholic Church on history would cause me to wonder how much trouble the Church gave the philosophers. If art had to have a proper religious focus and certain books were banned, how did the philosophers fare in the time of the Inquisition and other oppressive periods of the Church?

For a start, at the the time of the Inquisition there were no 'philosophers'. There were painters, poets, astronomers, mathematicians, and thinkers generally. However there was no caste of persons whose principal activity was 'philosophy'. The closest contemporary equivalents were the theologians. They were either good Catholics rejoicing in the love of Holy Mother Church - or they were Heretics, and ended up singing hosannas as they fried at the stake.

As for the others, two cases spring to mind. That of Giordano Bruno (who the Church burnt for his belief in a heliocentric solar system); and Galileo Gallilei (who believed as Bruno did but recanted and was spared).

Having cleared up that minor point let's get on to Descartes. Descartes' project was to locate substance (meaning, reality, fundamental, absolute, objective truth) within the life of the human being - and make it accessible to human reason. His arguments are interesting but not very successful. Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I know that I am - and therefore the world as it is revealed to the knowing mind is real and true.

The answer to Cogito ergo sum is simple: so what? What proof does the capacity for thought contain within it that what is thought is some accurate reflection of what's actually out there beyond the mind that thinks?

Hence his insistence that 'god' is involved somewhere. But since, by confining the human mind to what it can know only through perception of the world around it dear Rene has locked himself away from God, his contention that 'god' is still somehow the sole source of reality in the universe becomes an apparent self-contradiction. From this ridiculous position arises another well-worn phrase: 'the ghost in the machine' - which identifies the spiritual element of human existence which Descartes can't explain but refuses to relinquish.

I also do not understand all that he says. His discussion of God, in particular, I find very interesting.

He didn't understand all that he said either, so if I were you I wouldn't beat myself up over that. Since you seem to be attending a course in philosophy get your instructor to introduce you to Kant. Once that's been done repeat here what your instructor says concerning Kant and I'll explain to you what the fool misinterpreted, misjudged, and plain didn't understand.

~~DivasRule~~

Ok. Just call me 'the thread killer' lol.

Thread killer! I thought you wrote a good post.

From this ridiculous position arises another well-worn phrase: 'the ghost in the machine'

and all this time i was blaming that whole 'apo mikhanis theos' thing on euripides.

If I recall correctly Descartes never gave up on his pursuit of God in that he was a dualist acknowledging a rather inexplicable non-material essence that could conceivably lead to an all-embracing spirit.