[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 173 KB, 441x421, 1501924909466.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20845467 No.20845467 [Reply] [Original]

I'm trying to understand Descartes’ ontological argument for the existence of God, can someone let me know if I'm kinda thinking about it the right way? So basically there are truths that we accept about the nature of things clearly such as "2+2=4", "water is wet", "triangles have 3 sides", and then in regards to God, "it is in the nature of God that he exists", or in other words, "God exists", and so therefore, God exists? Or you could rephrase it as "something that must exist, must exist" and so there must exist a thing that in its nature must exist, and we can call this necessary thing "God"? (and then going forward we can maybe extrapolate other properties of God from the base property of necessary existence?) I have no idea what I'm talking about so feel free to call me a retard.

>> No.20845478

>>20845467
Descartes believed that his thoughts existed so he must exist, in that if his metaphysical demon existed (his senses) existed to deceive him, his reason was God, the opposite of deception, that everything is dual natured.

>> No.20845616

>>20845467
Descartes was fucking retarded and was wrong about literally everything.

>> No.20845638

You have the idea of a perfect being, but how did you come to that idea? The perfect cannot be known from the imperfect, therefore it is an innate idea. Furthermore, perfection includes existence as one of its attributes (because existing is more perfect than not). In conclusion, this innate idea of a perfect being demonstrates the existence of said being.

>> No.20845695

>>20845467
What the fuck are you trying to say?

>> No.20845724

>>20845467
There are good reasons for thinking that Descartes was just covering his ass, remembering what happened to Bruno some decades prior.

>> No.20845743

>>20845724
>remembering what happened to Bruno some decades prior.
Giordano Bruno made even more wack theological claims.

>> No.20845755

>>20845743
>made even more wack theological claims.
All theological claims are whacked, theology is pure fantasy. Bruno made UNPOPULAR theological claims.

>> No.20845759

>>20845743
Giordano Bruno had ayylmaos in his copernican mind palace

>> No.20845762

>>20845755
Yeah, but the point is Bruno's proofs of God were far more real and powerful (in the sense of how it actually operates in reality) than Descartes's. If Descartes wanted to stay out of the ire of theology he would have just not touched on God at all.

>> No.20845767

It's a really bad argument. When you strip it down all he's saying is "I define god as a being that exists, therefore he exists". There's is never any attempt to ascertain whether these definitions have any correspondence with existance, it is just taken for granted. The fact that this was considered an acceptable argument just 400 years ago shows just how much that philosophical thought is based on sophistry.

>>20845638
Just because you have an idea of a perfect being doesn't mean that you know that it exists.

>> No.20845788

>>20845767
How could I have an idea of a perfect being if it didn't exist?

>> No.20845792

>>20845638
>Furthermore, perfection includes existence as one of its attributes (because existing is more perfect than not).
I never understood this it seems obvious that a perfect example of something doesn't exist. Perfect circles don't exist and the circles that do exist aren't perfect. Existence implies imperfection.

>> No.20845807

>>20845743
I said covering his ass because I consider philosophical skepticism to be more heretical in the eyes of the Church at the time than heliocentrism or any of Bruno's Hermetic dabblings.

>> No.20845823

>>20845788
From a combination of the concepts of perfection and being, both extracted from experience. If you want to argue that perfection cannot be found in experience I will counter by saying that it is perfectly possible to contrast two situations or things as being better or worse than each other, and then it is possible to start thinking how to make all things better until it is not possible to improve them anymore, from which comes the idea of perfection.

>> No.20845824

>>20845788
I have an idea of my tongue up ur mum's pussy

>> No.20845864

>>20845807
>philosophical skepticism to be more heretical in the eyes of the Church
It clearly isn't because Bruno got burnt at the stake and Descartes didn't. Plus heresy has always been considered worse than atheism in the Catholic Church

>> No.20845868

>>20845823
It wouldn't be perfect if it didn't possess being though, so how could I have an idea of a perfect thing without it having being?

>> No.20845870

>>20845616
His line of thinking led to Vico, so it must have some value

>> No.20845876

>>20845724
Bruno also was a pantheist

>> No.20845904

>>20845868
>How could I have an idea of a unicorn if it didn't exist
Merely because you have the idea does not necessarily mean that it applies to existance.

>> No.20845914

>>20845864
>It clearly isn't because Bruno got burnt at the stake and Descartes didn't.
We would've seen how philosophical skepticism played out with the Church if Descartes had left out his pro-theism arguments from the Meditations. He didn't, though, and it could've been simple ass-covering.

>> No.20845919

>>20845638
This. It isnt a great argument to be honest, phenomenology destroys it pretty quickly. >>20845767
>>20845792
The core of the argument is the presence of perfection as a concept for the human mind. Nothing is perfect in this world, therefore this concept must be inherited. It is the signature of God into our minds, so to speak.

>> No.20845926

>>20845467
>there are truths that we accept about the nature of things clearly such as "2+2=4", "water is wet", "triangles have 3 sides"
Since when does anyone just accept these as axioms? Especially in a descartes thread.