Final Paper for Philosophy
By: Ben Smith
For my final paper I decided to choose Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes to compare
and contrast their philosophical views and their strengths and weaknesses. Both of these
philosophers had very interesting philosophical ideas which in my mind were hard to argue
against. With Aquinas feeling that God’s existence can be proven with evidence and science, so
the need for faith was not an issue according to Aquinas. On the other hand we have Descartes
who felt that we should use rational thinking and not to just believe what others tell us. Also he
felt that we should listen and then decide for ourselves after all the evidence is taken into
account.
Even though these philosophers had different ways of viewing truth I believe they also
had some similarities with the use of using rational thinking for ourselves to decide whether to
believe in what we or told or not. The use of this concept I feel is really applied to the thought or
belief in God. Who is in a lot of way a very controversial subject to many in that without true
hard evidence it is hard to believe in God’s existence. On the other hand there are those that rely
on faith alone for God’s existence and that alone is good enough for them. So in this essay I will
show how these two philosophers see many show different types of philosophical thinking and in
ways they have many similarities.
First I would like to start with the philosopher Thomas Aquinas, and his five ways to
prove the existence of God through evidence and without the need for faith. This is called
“argument in motion,” where he goes through a series of steps that are all part of a single
argument proving the existence of God through logical reasoning. Without going into all these
ways in extreme detail I will list them and give a brief explanation of them. The first way is
called “argument in motion” and this idea is based around for something to first be moved there
has to be something to give it motion. The second way is called the “cosmological argument” in
which there first must be something to exist before another thing to exist. The third way is called
“argument from necessity,” and this is thought is existence is on if nothing ever existed then
nothing would ever exist. The fourth way is called the “argument from graduation,” and this
means that there is a complexity in beings from basic on to more complex until we reach God.
The fifth and final way is called the “teleogical argument,” and idea basically means that there is
a grand design in the universe along with everything else that is a part of it.
Now that we have the main philosophical idea of how Thomas Aquinas argued the
existence of God we can now give the philosophical thinking of Rene Descartes so we can then
argue who had a better philosophy. Now with Descartes who is considered the rationalist and he
showed this by his philosophical way of thinking. He felt that we can search for answers, but to
really find the truth we need to look inwards at our own self’s and really think more for
ourselves. He also felt that if we just listen and believed what others told us then we would just
become memorizers instead of truly using rational thought to really believe.
So with this philosophical thinking he began to first wonder if there was just an evil
genius controlling us and that everything we see and feel is not truly real. This led to a more of a
rational thought of using rational thinking to prove his existence. This was like a series of blocks
being stacked up to build of rational thought his existence. This started with the “Cogito, Ergo
Sum.” Which mean “I think therefore I am.” Then the next block of rational thought is that if
there is a God then he would want us to seek him out and find out the truth about him. The next
block or concept is the innate idea of God which was that if God does exist then he would not
deceive us or let an evil genius deceives us. This went on to the thought that God is a perfect
being and since God is perfect then God must exist.
Now that we see that both the views of both philosophers and even though these view
where mainly pointed on how to perceive God and how it relates to their own existence, we can
argue their philosophies. To start out the similarities of both philosophers in seeing that they
both believed in God and his existence. But they looked their own existence very differently.
Descartes didn’t want to believe that someone else was controlling him and his thoughts. He
really wanted to believe that there wasn’t an evil genius making him think he existed and all that
existed to him was not truly real. So he came up with rational thinking to prove to himself and
others that we are not being manipulated to believe.
Now I can see how Descartes need these building blocks of rational thinking to help him
believe, but I don’t feel that there is enough strength (mortar) in those blocks to make his
thinking as rational as he feels. Since his rational thinking really could be due to an evil genius
giving him thought and his concept of the “Cogito” can be flawed. Since just because we have
thought doesn’t mean we truly exist. This really isn’t proof of existence. This idea is merely a
nice way of feeling that since he can think for himself then he must really exist. But this really
doesn’t prove anything over that a nice series of rational thoughts.
So if he had heard Tomas Aquinas’s argument of the existence of God, at first Descartes
could not just believe in what Aquinas is telling us and according to Descartes philosophy he
would just listen and then look into himself for his own answers of his own existence. Descartes
argument for his own existence is because he has looked inwards into himself and decided this.
It doesn’t seem that he has really proven an existence of God or maybe that wasn’t his purpose.
It seems that he needed to prove his own existence and it seemed that God had played a part of
this rational thinking in this building up of his philosophy. But not really pertaining to proving
anything about God in any substantial way. It seems more that through his thinking he is using
his own advice and looking inwards in himself for God’s existence and showing faith in the
belief that there must be a God since his does think for himself and is seeking out God.
This would go against Aquinas’s argument since he is more logically proving the
existence of God which I feel is a more scientific and a much better way to prove an existence to
others of a being that no one can see. Aquinas argument seems to work for everybody on many
different levels. Since there are those that belief with faith that can’t really argue with Aquinas
since they would already believe and Aquinas’s argument would just add more validity to their
belief in God. For those that don’t believe such as scientist or those that have a hard time
believing without faith can see a logical reasoning in Aquinas’s philosophy. So at the end of the
day I feel that Aquinas would have to win the argument of proving our existence through God or
starting with God.
Now on the other hand Descartes have a very sound philosophy of the idea of believing
in what others tell us. One of the questions that we had in our group discussion was the question
“what is truth.” It actually took our group some discussing to really figure out what that meant
and we all seemed to have a slightly different way of looking at that question. So with Descartes
and his philosophy about not just becoming memorizers of what we are told and we really need
to look inwards before we believe in any truth. I really like this idea and it has really helped me
think about how easy it is to believe what we hear and just take that as truth. I feel we all do this
with the news (because we don’t see any reason why they should lie to us), the media, and
largely the internet. It is so easy to google something and just believe what we read as truth and
not really research it more or wonder if what we read is truth of false.
I’m not saying that Descartes was a visionary man, but I think more than ever his
philosophy is very relevant to our society and especially to our youth. They are our future and
they have become so reliant of the internet and what they read. They really don’t have the
wisdom or maybe the reason to disbelieve what they read. This really could pose of problem
when it comes to how they act and even when they start to vote since there really is no control
what is said over the internet. It is not at all like the news (TV and newspaper), and that if they
run a false add, then may have to retract that news. Basically the news seems to be set to a
higher standard at least much more than the internet.
Both of these philosophers had their strengths and weakness in different departments.
Aquinas was more a man of faith but also used logical reasoning to prove his point. Descartes
seemed to have lacked a bit with his argument for Gods existence, but he did give a good
argument for a general or basic idea of existence. Since Descartes just thinking for ourselves is
not a sound philosophical reason for existence and seems to be more based on faith. But it did
hold true to his belief of looking inwards to one’s self for knowledge and truth. So even though
he didn’t contradict himself he still fell short of using his method to argue God’s existence.
Aquinas did a much better job of proving God’s existence and even though he was a man
a faith. I felt he also knew that there are those that need more than faith to believe and this is
what made him a great philosopher in my mind. I really liked his logical reasoning and think I
will use his argument in my own life and feel that I can have fun with it. Since a lot of what he
says would be hard to disagree with even though someone might be completely against God and
his existence. It is still hard to argue with physics and the facts that support it.
I feel like I can walk away from both of these philosophers knowing that they have made
an impact on me in one way or another. On one hand Thomas Aquinas has helped me see God
existence in a much different perspective than I had ever thought I could have. Then on the other
hand I feel that Descartes has helped me see society and the truth I see and hear are two totally
different things. Also not just to take what I hear at face value. There is much more to life than
what is just said to us. In that I need to take the time to listen more and think for myself and look
inwards in myself to find an answer. This alone will help me become a better thinker and maybe
even be more philosophical in my own live. So in the end both of these philosophers and
including a wonderful professor have helped me to think more philosophically, and to look at
issues and ideas on a much different level.
Thank You Teresa!