Modern Philosophy-Final Essay Revision Trevor Chicoine Rev. Wm Joensen 14 December 2010 Can we know the existence or essence of the world, of God, of ourselves? These are some of the questions that Blaise Pascal and John Locke seek to address. The two great French and English philosophers draw some differing conclusions about the natural world and strangely enough end up at a similar conclusion concerning God by different roads. Unity added to infinity does not increase infinity at all, any more than a foot added to an infinite length, begins Blaise Pascal in his discussion of our mind s ability to know God and the extended world (Pascal, Pensées, AW 94). Pascal believes that our very existence adds nothing to God s own existence. Pascal believes that our minds and ways of thinking are vastly removed from those of God, whether it is our concept of limitation, justice, or mercy (Pascal, Pensées, AW 94). From this, Pascal presents his doctrine on the ability of the human to know the existence and essence of God. We may know that there is an existence of an infinite, but not know its nature because it has extension like us but does not have limits as we do. Pascal asserts that while we can know of the existence of the infinite it is impossible for us, in our limited human state, to comprehend the nature, or essence, of that infinite, namely God (Pascal, Pensées, AW 95.) In his own words, We know that there is an infinite, but do not know its nature, just as we know it to be false that numbers are finite, (Pascal, Pensées, AW 95). Pascal goes onto demonstrate that even though we know that numbers are infinite, we do not know what the essence of that number, it cannot be odd or even, yet every number is either odd or even. It s essence is beyond our understanding, as it that of God s (Pascal Pensées, AW 95).
However, Pascal still maintains that it is rationally important to believe in God. Pascal proposes to us a wager of sorts, and it is not an optional one. We must either believe in God, or at least act as if we do, or choose to wager God doesn t exist. If the former turns out to be true, then we have lost nothing and have gained eternity. At the very least, wagering for God will make you faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, sincere, a true friend (Pascal, Pensées, AW 95-96). Thus, Pascal demonstrates it is reasonable to believe in God. However, Pascal does believe that we can know the existence and the essence of the finite, sensible world. Pascal states that we can indeed know the finite world because, unlike the infinite we are finite ourselves, extended yet limited (Pascal, Pensées, AW 95). As Gilson & Langan put it in their treatment of Pascal, Man therefore finds himself situated in the middle of nature, caught between two infinitely distant extremities, and this is all orders of reality as well as of knowledge. For Pascal man seems to be caught up somewhere in between being able to understand nothing and everything. He may understand the finite, but not fully grasp the essence of the naturally infinite (Gilson & Langan Modern Philosophy-Descartes to Kant 121). John Locke tackles the question of humans ability to understand the essences and existence of God and the world in a manner much different than that of Pascal. Locke s starting point is very simple, Idea is the object of thought. Locke believes that all of our ideas come from sensation. The senses furnish the mind with many simple ideas (Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding [ECHU] n. 2 AW 276). Our mind receives them in a
passive manner because they are neither created nor destroyed by the mind, but our judgments and experiences may modify these ideas (Locke, ECHU n. 2 AW 281). Our mind begins to note that many of these simple ideas commonly go together and then puts these ideas into one single idea which the mind then gives a name and that single idea becomes a substance (Locke, ECHU AW 312). Locke says that we never really understand the substance in and of itself, but only those simple ideas which make up the substance. Hence, we do not comprehend actual essences. For example the mind may think it knows gold as a substance but it really only knows the yellowness and other properties of gold (Locke, ECHU n. 1-3 AW 312-313) Locke takes an interesting stance when it comes to the ability of humans to understand spirit. Locke says we have as clear an idea of Spirit as of body, (Locke ECHU n. 5 AW 313). Locke maintains that we group the simple ideas of thinking, reasoning, & fearing together into the substance spirit. Locke concludes the discussion of spirit by saying that We can no more conclude its [spirits ] nonexistence than we can for the same reason deny the existence of the body. (Locke, ECHU n. 5 AW 313). For Locke, the being which is pure spirit and pure activity (as opposed to pure matter which is only passive) is God. Locke believes that we come by the idea of God in the same way in which we come by the rest of our ideas-through perception and simple ideas. The simple ideas that makeup God are: existence and duration, knowledge and power, pleasure and happiness and several other qualities and powers which it is better to have than to be without, (Locke ECHU n. 33 AW 319). James Gibson points out that for Locke these qualities are essentially inspirable from God for Locke and make God different from
the other spirits (Gibson, Locke s Theory of Knowledge and its Historical Relations n. 10, 105). However, because we only know the sortal essence of God and not his actual essence, Locke says that we cannot know God truly as He is, but only of the simple ideas which we enact upon him. (Locke ECHU n. 37 AW 319-320). Locke believes we can know the existence of God, just only in the sortal essence. Locke presents the following argument for God s logical existence. First, man is capable of knowing that God exists, and secondly man knows himself. Thirdly, man knows that nothing comes from nothing as Julie Andrews put it in The Sound of Music. Fourthly that an eternal being must be most powerful, most knowing, and, therefore God (Locke ECHU n. 1-8, AW 358-356). When it comes to the ability of the human subject to understand the essence of the sensible world, Locke and Pascal must part ways in their thinking. Locke takes the position analyzed above that some may deem extreme-that is that it is impossible for humans to know things as they are, and that we only know the sortal essences of things. Pascal takes the opposite position, rising to the conclusion that the human subject can indeed know the actual essences of finite things. Of the natural sciences Pascal wrote, If they are not true, there is no truth in man, if they are not true, he finds therein much to humiliate him, and is obliged to abase himself on way or another, (Pascal, Pensées, Lafuma, n. 390, 105). Locke would have none of this however as we can see above, stating plainly that we have no clear idea of substance in general (Locke ECHU n. 4 AW 319-320). On this point, the two are diametrically opposed.
Again, when it comes to humans ability to know God, Pascal and Locke harbor obstinately opposing philosophies. Locke believes we can know the existence of God, just not his full essence. Locke presents his logical argument for God s existence, maintaining that we can know for certain that God exists, if only knowing his sortal essence. Pascal disagrees. His argument boils down to the simple fact that we, the finite beings, cannot grasp the infinite being. Pascal states that we may believe that God exists, without knowing Him truly as He is (Pascal Pensées, AW 95). Pascal says we must wager, and no harm comes to you for wagering for God, and it will make you a better person, and there is an infinite life of happiness to be won, (Pascal Pensées, AW 95-96). As with the finite, Pascal and Locke have intractable philosophies. Pascal and Locke continue to engage our minds and hearts today. They present different sides of age-old philosophical questions-locke s words ever ready to challenge on those of Pascal on the ability of the human mind to know God s existence and essence, and its ability to know the existence and essence of finite things. But then again, what more could one expect from two 17 th Century Englishman and Frenchman? Bibliography Gibson, James. Locke's Theory of Knowledge and its Historical Relations. New York, NY: The Cambridge University Press, 1968. Gilson, Etienne and Thomas Langan. Modern Philosophy: Descartes to Kant. New York, NY: Random House Inc., 1963. Lafuma, Louis. Blaise Pascal Pensees Notes on Religion and Other Subjects. Trans. John Warrington. London, England: J.M Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1960. Locke, John. "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Ariew, Rodger and Eric Watkins. Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Puclishing Company, Inc., 1998. 270-373. Pascal, Blaise. "Pensées." Areiw, Rodger and Eric Watkins. Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Indianapolis IN: Hackett Publishing Compnay, Inc, 1998. 94-96.