Will come with an update today... The natural light of certainty ( the update I promised )...

in sciences •  2 years ago  (edited)

I apologize for the error I made, posting by mistake twice this article earlier: https://steemit.com/sciences/@benjy87/back-to-things-themselves

In fact, I logged into my busy.org account and posted from there and since the two sites comunicate with one another, my last post got reposted. But I will update this article today and write something entirely new!

So, be sure to check out later this post!


So today I chose to talk about the natural light of certainty. After studying more phylosofic works of different people I got inspired to write about this topic.

I don't know, maybe you, the audience, would find it interesting, maybe not, but it's my job to keep writing and learning at the same time, hoping that at some point I will get a hold of it.

The natural light of certainty

Descartes defines natural light as "the faculty of knowledge that has been given to us by God": it follows that through it we are revealed all those things that we know through the faculty of knowledge that has been given to us by God.

Indeed, all we know we owe to this faculty given by God. So everything that comes to us through natural light. But this is absurd.


By which hint I could distinguish natural light from unnatural light?

Namely, to distinguish the direct light of nature from the oblique or reflected light of art? Or the pure light of nature from the impure light of error? Or perhaps it can be said that all people see through the immediate intuition of the mind and admit that it is true was known by natural light? But how can we know that people obtain this knowledge through the immediate intuition of the mind? How can we be sure that they see the truth and that all people accept it? Or maybe there is something that has been received by a unanimous consensus and has never been rejected by anyone?

What could be better known to man than his own existence and his own humanity?

And yet, Democritus doubted his existence, just as Socrates doubted he was human.


What is best known, along with other geometric axioms, than the principle by which the whole is greater than the part?

Yet many have canceled these principles, and Descartes himself has forced us to regard them as false. But if we admit, however, that that knowledge acquired through natural light is easily distinguishable from any other kind of knowledge;

On the basis of which reason we can know that the things we know through natural light are true?

God is deceiving, so it is said. Descartes, however, continues to struggle with this broken weapon, which I have minted. Finally, when we consider Descartes, God can act so that two and two do not make four, if we think God is capable of doing, the natural light we know that two plus two make four will be misleading. This can not therefore be a certain criterion, since it may be false.


Once this criterion has been emptied of certainty, the criterion of natural light will be deprived of credibility and its clear and distinct perception.

Indeed, Descartes creates the certainty of this type of perception based on many statements which he claims to be known for because of natural light and, moreover, derives from this principle. He states that "in the soul of all there is a trace left by nature, through which, whenever we clearly understand something, we accept it spontaneously, and we can not doubt the truth of this institution." So natural light can deceive us and mislead even the clear and distinct perception.


I conclude here my post, but not before giving the proper credit to a work that inspired me to write this article called "Critique of Cartesian Philosophy" by Pierre Daniel Huet.

If you find this article to be a good read, please feel free to follow me to stay up to date with my posts and show your support by upvoting this post! Thank you!

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Thanks for sharing...

This post recieved an upvote from minnowpond. If you would like to recieve upvotes from minnowpond on all your posts, simply FOLLOW @minnowpond

Este Post ha recibido un Upvote desde la cuenta del King: @dineroconopcion, El cual es un Grupo de Soporte mantenido por 5 personas mas que quieren ayudarte a llegar hacer un Top Autor En Steemit sin tener que invertir en Steem Power. Te Gustaria Ser Parte De Este Projecto?

This Post has been Upvote from the King's Account: @dineroconopcion, It's a Support Group by 5 other people that want to help you be a Top Steemit Author without having to invest into Steem Power. Would You Like To Be Part of this Project?

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by benjy87 from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

This post recieved an upvote from minnowpond. If you would like to recieve upvotes from minnowpond on all your posts, simply FOLLOW @minnowpond

This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the first half of Sep 09. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $28.36 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.

See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Sep 09 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.

If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.