Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

subjective faith - is also faith, with a key distinction - it is not based on observation or the scientific method, but purely

on an individual's intuition. There is an important role for subjective faith in fields such as art - you and I may like different favorite paintings, for example. And subjective faith is fine, when it is restricted to fields which are agreed upon to be subjective - such as creation and appreciation of art subjective faiths become a basis for contention, leading to a need for consensus, as is done when people disagree on religion - since reason has no role to play, it becomes a contest of might, causing waste in life, property and prosperity. We have faith in the Lord Jesus, and this is the action of believing. It therefore denotes subjective faith. This faith arises in us when we come to the word and enjoy it in spirit. Subjective faith moves in our spirit in order to bring forth an organic union between us and the Triune God, and in this union we receive the divine life and nature.

Aquinas' Five Proofs What real evidence can be supplied for God's existence? St. Thomas, in his Summa Theologica, sets forth five separate proofs for the existence of God, Unlike St. Anselm's proof, which deals with pure concepts, St. Thomas' proofs rely on the world of our experience-what we can see around us. In these proofs we can easily see the influence of Aristotle and his doctrine of the Four Causes. l) The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God. 2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and that First Maker we call God. 3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God. 4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God. 5) The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design--the bird's wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God

The idea that existence precedes essence means that a human being, as well as human reality, exists prior to any concepts of values or morals. A person is born a blank slate; humanity has no universal, predetermined principles or ethics common to all of mankind. Since no preformed essence or definition exists of what is means to "be human," a person must form his/her own conception of existence by asserting control of and responsibility for his/her actions and choices. Consequently, a human being gains his/her essence through individual choices and actions. It is solely through the process of living that one defines one's self. Through day-to-day living, one is continuously involved in the process of shaping one's identity. With the absence of any a priori moral code to abide by, humans possess the fundamental freedom to create their own system of beliefs. Such an individual freedom of consciousness carries with it the burden of responsibility for the choices one makes. Every human is responsible for his/her choices and actions. If one denies the responsibility if his/her own choices, then one is acting in bad faith, a form of selfdeception which leads to feelings of anxiety, despair, anguish, and forlornness. Being-in-itself is the self-contained and fully realized being of objects. , Being-in-itself is contrasted with the being of persons, which he terms Dasein. (Heidegger 1962, p. H.27) "Dasein means: care of the Being of beings as such that is ecstatically disclosed in care, not only of human Being...Dasein is itself by virtue of its essential relation to Being in general." (Heidegger 2000, p. H.31) Fortunately, Heidegger recognized the dangers inherent to talking about Being in general and particular beings Being-in-itself (tre-en-soi) and Being-for-itself (tre-pour-soi). Being-in-itself is non-conscious Being, the Being of existing things or objects of consciousness. Being-for-itself is conscious Being, which is conscious of what it is not. Being-for-itself is conscious of itself. Indeed, consciousness can exist only as engaged in a being conscious of itself. Being-for-itself is consciousness of objects, and can be the object of its own consciousness; i.e. it is conscious that it is conscious of objects. Consciousness also includes selfconsciousness. Sartre emphasizes that all consciousness is consciousness of something. This is an ontological proof of what appears in consciousness. If consciousness can only be consciousness of something other than itself, then what appears in consciousness must already exist. Nothingness is a state of non-being. Nothingness does not itself have Being, but is sustained by Being. Sartre disagrees with Hegel that Being and Nothingness are opposite, or are opposed as thesis and antithesis respectively. Sartre says that Nothingness is the contradiction, and not the opposite, of Being. Nothingness is logically subsequent to Being. Sartre notes that Kierkegaard described anguish in the face of what the individual lacks as anguish in the face of freedom, and that Heidegger considered anguish as the apprehension of Nothingness. For Kierkegaard, anguish is consciousness of freedom, whereas fear is dread of something in the world. Being and Nothingness is remarkable for Sartres willingness to confront Nothingness as part of human reality. Nothingness for us is non-existence, negation, nihilation. Sartre argues for accepting personal responsibility, despite the absence of a determining principle that would guarantee objective certainty. He also argues that consciousness of Being means consciousness of Nothingness. For Sartre, we are our own Nothingness, and we bring Nothingness into the world. Sartre confronts Nothingness, and embraces it as part of human reality.

Being-For-Itself - Being has several dimensions. Being-for-itself is defined "as being what it is not and not being what it is" (Sartre, 1956: lxv). It is our potentiality to be more than we are being. The For-Itself is perpetually designing itself not to be the InItself.