/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14222152]

How do Thomists respond to the objections made by Kant and Schopenhauer?
>Immanuel Kant objected to the use of “necessary being” throughout the cosmological argument, and hence to the conclusion that a necessary being exists. Kant held that the cosmological argument, in concluding to the existence of an absolutely necessary being, attempts to prove the existence of a being whose nonexistence “is impossible”, is “absolutely inconceivable” (Critique B621). Kant indicates that what he has in mind by an “absolutely necessary being” is a being whose existence is logically necessary, where to deny its existence is contradictory. The only being that meets this condition is the most real or maximally excellent being—a being with all perfections, including existence. This concept lies at the heart of the ontological argument (see entry on ontological arguments). Although in the ontological argument the perfect being is determined to exist through its own concept, in fact nothing can be determined to exist in this manner; one has to begin with existence. In short, the cosmological argument presupposes the cogency of the ontological argument. But since the ontological argument is defective for the above (and other) reason, the cosmological argument that depends on or invokes it likewise must be defective

>Schopenhauer also objected in >Objected in "On the Fourfold Root, and On the Will, page 42"

[Anonymous No.14222217]

>>14221080

[Anonymous No.14222245]

>>14222152
>absolutely inconceivable

[Anonymous No.14222322]

>>14222245
>>14222217
Please don't participate in my threads with nonsense. I only want genuine replies, and my post is in good faith. I wish for you to not soil it.

[Anonymous No.14222332]

>>14222322
based

[Anonymous No.14222357]

>>14222322
You still don't understand how argument works even after it was explained to you. We're not going to argue with a book, Kant and Schopenhauer are dead. They can't reply to us. You are standing in their place. Now offer an argument of theirs in your own words or go back to wikipedia where you belong dumb austist.

[Anonymous No.14222499]

>>14222357
Actually lots of Thomists are willing to engage with Kant's and Schopenhauer's works, not everyone is as much of a cunt as you are

[Anonymous No.14222567]

>>14222357
not an argument

[Anonymous No.14222659]

>>14222499
Based

[Anonymous No.14222672]

Why was the previous thread deleted?

[Anonymous No.14222684]

>>14222672
A Christcuck started spamming gore

[Anonymous No.14222688]

I think thered a potential Augustinian reponse to Kant. We can start with what is knowable, that being my own existence. That is an immutable fact, demonstrating the necessity for permanence beyond merely a phenomenal way. We can establish that permanence is a necessity, and that knowledge is of what is permanent and hence eternal, suggesting that we can have knowledge of a necessary noumenal existent such as God.

[Anonymous No.14222694]

>>14222684
Thats a shame, I was having a good conversation in there last night and went to check my (You)s this morning and I was heartbroken. Its like coming to find an empty Valentine's day box after passing out all your cards and candy.

[Anonymous No.14222695]

>>14222684
Talk about hypocrites. Like most idealogues, they’re more concerned with having the last word than living in good faith.

[Anonymous No.14222710]

>>14222357
lol cope

[Anonymous No.14222735]

>>14222357
Good thing that this is /lit/ where we post about and discuss literature and not /arg/ where we bash our heads against a wall about meta arguments

[Anonymous No.14222988]

>>14222357
>NOOOOO! YOU CANT JUST BRING UP WELL-CONSIDERED ARGUMENTS BY ESTABLISHED PHILOSOPHERS! YPU HAVE TO COME UP WITH YOUR OWN INFERIOR ARGUMENTS SO ITS EASIER FOR ME TO WIN

Change your diaper, dude.

[Anonymous No.14223016]

Even if classical ontological arguments were flawed (I’m not convinced they were on the grounds that Kant brought up), modal ontological arguments don’t have the points of contention which the classical arguments do.

[Anonymous No.14223177]

Hump

[Anonymous No.14223219]

>>14222152
They respond by taking a huge dump in your mouth

[Anonymous No.14223274]

>>14222152
Existence must presuppose ontology, a necessary existence does not.

[Anonymous No.14224446]

Humping

[Anonymous No.14224698]

>>14222152

The whole point of the ontological argument is that you can assume it to prove the cosmological argument. It's an if-then statement.

[Anonymous No.14224708]

>>14223219

[Anonymous No.14224743]

The Kant argument fails because it can't explain why several scholastics (most famously but not exclusively Aquinas himself) posited forms of the cosmological argument while rejecting the soundness of the ontological argument.

In particular, not all Thomists would agree that it is *a priori* or *self-evidentially* self-contradictory to deny the existence of a necessary being unless said being has been proven through argumentation, and they would affirm that said argumentation need not be the ontological argument.

If you're interested in reading more on this I highly recommend Denys Turner. Also, several intellectual historians have argued that Kant simply did not understand scholasticism and did not really know enough about its own doctrines to mount a successful critique of it. A lot of his critique of scholasticism was mediated through Descartes and Hume.

The Schopenhauer argument IIRC is actually interesting but since you don't provide a quote and I don't have the book on me I won't reply to it rn.

Hope this helps, sorry some of the others didn't give productive replies.