[ 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: 22 KB, 780x439, gottfried_wilhelm_leibniz[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15783364 No.15783364 [Reply] [Original]

>Because we can imagine God, he has to exist
why did you guys recommend me this brainlet

>> No.15783376

>>15783364
He must have thought he was soooooooo smart

>> No.15783378

>>15783364
because you were too stupid to understand his claims. reread descarte and actually read leipniz, not the wikipedia article, his own writings.

>> No.15783382
File: 156 KB, 1015x1200, 433C1134-E1C6-4D59-8CCF-881EAB829F62.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15783382

There’s ravenous bands of schizophrenics loose on this board. Choose recommended reading materials cautiously.

>> No.15783383

>>15783364
>because we cannot imagine God, He cannot merely be a concept of our minds

>> No.15783392

>>15783364
Von Leibniz wasn't a brainlet, anon. It is just that he wasn't aware of Adorno like we are.

>> No.15783393
File: 40 KB, 600x377, xRyDWX59jgwDfkTGUGc2E8ZBGxLIeWqfXgM0KIDSomo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15783393

>>15783364
It's the conditions of God's essence which secures the validity of the thesis.
For instance, God is such that he is necessitated if imaginable; whereas a unicorn, though imaginable, is not necessitated by this. The reason for this is what God in essence is as opposed to what a unicorn is.

>> No.15783616
File: 28 KB, 470x1080, ontological.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15783616

>> No.15784357

If you believe good and evil choices and acts exist, as in any form of better and worse, you necessarily have to believe in the Good.
But the ontological argument is flawed because it lacks the Neoplatonic base of the One as source of individuality itself, this is the true argument of ontology.

>> No.15784374

>>15783393
That just sounds like a glorified ontological argument

>> No.15784405

>>15784374
>a validated Godel ontological argument
>ontological
>argument
What was your first clue?

>> No.15784432

>>15784405
You're right, i'm retarded. I just thought it sounded like a rehash of anselm

>> No.15784434
File: 91 KB, 200x200, bear.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15784434

>>15783364
>>Because we can imagine God, he has to exist
That's actually genius. But I wouldn't expect the lower kind of man to understand.

>> No.15784443

>>15784434
>Cogito ergo sum.

>> No.15784453

Admittedly there was a tendency in thinkers of that time to "virtue signal" or "namedrop" their allegiance to God. Whenever intellectual rigor failed, simply say God did it and assure coherence to your system.

>> No.15784578

>>15784453
That's a bit revisionist. Atheism and Deism simply weren't common in Western philosophy until the 17th century.
>Whenever intellectual rigor failed, simply say God did it and assure coherence to your system.
This, for example, wasn't a common feature in western philosophical thinking. It was perhaps more common in certain Islamic philosophy after a period. "A tree falls because Allah wills it." And maybe among Pietist or Primitivist movements in Christianity. Perhaps it's a theological rift.
But many philosophers, Godel being one of them, wrestled with central metaphysical questions of being. And when they confront these questions, they find themselves interacting with many Theistic ideas not only in Christianity, but in the Aristotelian tradition. Frankly, Leibniz and Descartes have a philosophy of God that's not too different from Aquinas.

It's no surprise that many analytic philosophers (other than Godel) and logical positivists tend to be atheists. Because they tend to ignore metaphysics as a subject.

>> No.15784805

>>15783364
Read his letters. He has written so many fucking letters that they aren't even done categorizing his archive.

>> No.15784971
File: 77 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15784971

>Superman is the most super being that can exist.
>A being which exists is more super than one that doesn't exist.
>Superman exists.

This kind of rhetoric is too easy to parody.

>> No.15784993
File: 32 KB, 680x572, FB_IMG_1586855426599.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15784993

>>15783364
>God's absence implies a corresponding presence
Based

>> No.15785654

>>15783364
Aside from math, Leibniz was a hack

>> No.15785687

>>15783364
Leibniz did not think like this
>>15784453
Leibniz did not do this and in fact spoke out against it

Let’s stop threads based on the reading of wiki articles and actually read authors instead

>> No.15785706

>>15785687
I got this from the monadology

>> No.15785720

>>15784971
But he’s not the most super being that could exist. As we know there are several DC entities which are more super than Superman. Including but not limited to: doomsday, darkseid, darkseids dad, flash, Martian man hunter, dr.manhattan, anti-monitor, the presence, Lucifer Morningstar, spectre, mr. mxy, the endless, the monitor, perpetua, and many more