Tell me why his ontological argument is faulty, otherwise I'm going to start identifying as a deist, because it seems pretty solid to me.
>>919351
Do you mean the ontological argument of Aquinas, or the meme one? The meme one begs the question, the one formed by Aquinas requires sophisticated reasoning and is basically iron-clad from certain sets of axioms.
>>919365
I posted a picture of Descartes, not Anselm or Aquinas. Aquinas' is shit and falls apart quickly. Descartes', however, seems solid.
>>919384
Never read Descartes. How does "I think, therefore I am" lead to "God exists," may I ask?
>>919390
Why are you referring to Cogito Ergo Sum when I'm talking about meditations 3 and 5 as well as his collective responses to objections?
>>919390
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/
>>919384
Descartes basically borrowed from Augustine/Anselm (it's first found in City of God) - it hinges on whether or not existence is an additional predicate to being (which it seems that it is i.e. a space aircraft carrier might exist in the imagination but does not enjoy the additional predicate of existence [yet])
>>919351
>1.Our idea of God is of a perfect being
>2.it is more perfect to exist than not to exist
>3.therefore, God must exist.
Premise 2 begs the question
Also, 'God' is never defined
So not only could this never suffice as an argument for a christian god, it is not even an argument for a generally accepted God, more an argument that something 'perfect' exists - whatever perfect is
>>919400
But he addresses that issue and was unaware of either Anselm or Augustine (or so he claimed).
>>919405
>strawman this hard
>2016
>>919407
>drive by post implying without contributing
That is Descartes' ontological argument
He has another argument for the existence of god but it's called something else
>>919405
back2phil201 friend
2. does not beg the question - it makes a claim about perfection of being being greater when it is instantiated in fact rather than as a mere abstraction. this isn't that hard to think about. it's great to imagine having a billion dollars (what you would do with it etc.), but it is way better to actually have it than merely imagine it.
God is defined as maximally great being, of which it certainly holds that it would be greater to exist than not to.
The argument isn't meant to prove that Jesus is who he says he is, just that you're a fool like yourself not to believe in God at all.
Thanks for coming out though!
>>919405
>>919421
That doesn't contradict anything I said
Version B as written there is identical to how I interpreted it
Would you rather I attacked version A? Cause this is what happens when OP asks a question about something that is subject to interpretation without defining it
>>919422
>God is defined as maximally great being, of which it certainly holds that it would be greater to exist than not to.
This still begs the question, let me spell it out for you
'Why is existence better than non existence?'
Saying 'it certainly holds true' doesn't mean it actually does you mongoloid
>>919438
>you mongoloid
Okay, maybe an adult will try to have a discussion with me.
>>919447
>I'll focus on one insult and pretend like I didn't insult you first so I don't have to deal with your argument which blows me the fuck out
>>919447
>acting butthurt when someone insults you
first day on 4chan?
>>919457
>saying you used a strawman fallacy is an insult
What
>>919452
Yeah, I've read it. I didn't find that to be the case at all. Is that what your philosophy teacher told you? Because Descartes outlines exactly why it's rational to accept clear and distinct perceptions without god.
>>919473
>>back2phil201 friend
>>just that you're a fool like yourself not to believe in God at all.
Did you read what you wrote or are you actually so up yourself that you don't see this as insulting?
>>919480
That wasn't me, friend.
>>919479
>Because Descartes outlines exactly why it's rational to accept clear and distinct perceptions without god.
No, he literally got called out for this by Arnauld and had to write a hasty response to how it totally made sense wherein he backtracked and said god was only needed to trust the memories of clear and distinct perceptions
Again, have you ever actually read Descartes or did you just read his wikipedia article and the memes on /his/? Cause I'm guessing the latter
Isn't the entire argument based on the idea that intuition/perception is a truth?
I intuit the perfect being, I intuit
Its necessary existence, yada yada.
The conclusion is sound, but the premise relies on trusting that which you intuit. The analogy to numbers and shapes is itself a silly one, as there is a whole can of worms there.
I am not well-versed in this, and this contention is probably shit. But, by making my shitty noncontribution, maybe someone who knows something will respond to it and we will all learn.
>>919351
It's not that it's faulty, it's incomplete. The devil is a Deist; the devil knows there is a God.
>>919502
What?
>>919438
>'Why is existence better than non existence?'
That question would only be raised by someone who is not God.
>>919493
"You didn't even read it, therefore I'm right."
Dude, I just fucking told you I read it, stop being a condescending ass hole. I'm asking for the faults, you provided your take, and I'm trying to see if you're right or Descartes is. Grow the fuck up.
>>919505
It's not enough to figure out that there is a God. It's just not.
The devil knows there is a God; he has spoken with God many times. And the devil is damned.
If you don't believe in God, you're not even to the point of being as damned as the devil.
>>919508
>I know this cause I'm God
>>919513
He's my Father, yes.
>>919438
>Why is existence better than non existence?
How would existence not be better than non existence? It seems pretty basic to me that something is better than nothing.
>>919511
If you read it then how are you unaware of very basic, well-known criticisms of it then were raised when Descartes was still alive?
>>919512
I'm not going to ever accept your batshit Christianity. Get the fuck out.
>>919518
>you read the source material, why aren't you aware of what people who weren't him said?
I'm sorry?
>>919517
But you have no knowledge of non-existence so how could you possibly know to compare?
>>919519
You are, actually. Sooner, when it would do you some good, or later, when it will not.
But your knee will bend, and your tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Bet your soul on it.
Isn't nonexistence a meaningless counterfactual because to ascribe any characteristics to it would be to give it traits of existence
>>919530
This is a thread for people trying to have an intelligent conversation.
>>919527
But you do. Prior to your conception, you did not exist.
Did you enjoy it?
>>919534
I see people struggling to get up to the level of realizing that there is a God.
I don't see any intelligence whatsoever.
>>919526
The response to Descartes and Descartes' response are included in pretty much every publication of his work because it's so necessary
>>919533
>this
>>919351
Why do you need to waste your time debating philosophical arguments that are confusing?
A simple look at nature attests to God, and His attributes.
>>919536
I don't remember it
Are you gonna claim you do?
I'm pretty sure I was never sad before I existed though...
>>919543
Because I'm not a simpleton.
>>919527
Yes it is true that one cannot truly understand non-existence, but we can know what it is not, that being existence, ergo we could conclude that non-existence would be an absence of all that existence entails, which is where I can make a comparison.
>>919545
I am not.
I am going to claim that my existence is greater than the existence I did not experience when I did not exist.
And then I'm going to post this.
Indeed, on some occasions he suggests that the so-called ontological “argument” is not a formal proof at all but a self-evident axiom grasped intuitively by a mind free of philosophical prejudice.
>>919550
existence entails as much negative as positive, so what leads you to think non-existence is 'better'?
>>919553
>I am going to claim that my existence is greater than the existence I did not experience when I did not exist.
That's not the argument
Being on fire is a better state of being hot than not being on fire
That doesn't mean I want to be on fire
>>919563
>existence entails as much negative as positive, so what leads you to think non-existence is 'better'?
Again, only a being Who is not God would think this.
God is having an awesome life, free of all negatives.
>>919546
Then look at the more complex signs, like DNA or something.
>>919563
If you state that being on fire is a better state of existence, then yes, you should light yourself on fire, or you don't really believe that to be true.
Actions follow beliefs.
>>919546
Are you more intelligent than God?
>>919563
>false equivalency
>2016
>>919565
But how can you compare the positives on god's existence to the nothingness of non-existence?
And how can you even call anything good in the first place?
That's the other problem with the argument, it assumes that 'perfect' as a concept can literally, objectively exist
>>919563
perhaps greater would be a more appropriate word than better in this context. With the presence of something being greater than a lack there of.
>>919573
That's rather a good question, as God has never experienced non-existence; He is an eternal spirit being. I would only opine that such a question never occurs to Him to be possible; I Am cannot be I Am Not.
I can call God good, because I have found God to be good, and only God to be good, and everything good to flow from God.
Assuming God exists would not be the worst assumption a person makes.
>>919568
I didn't say it was a better a state of existence, I said it was a better state of being hot
>>919571
No it's not
It highlights my point that things can seem better when compared to something specific (ie existence is better than non-existence at existing), but that doesn't prove anything outside of that comparison
>>919579
See code, infer coder.
See universe, infer universe maker.
Maybe you need to simplify your thought process in order to grasp things that seem simple to you now, but in fact grow vast in scope.
>>919580
Greater what?
In terms of mass? Why would that be relevant?
>>919588
We're talking about existence, not comfort. Is it better not to exist, or to exist being on fire forever?
I would argue that the former is actually preferable to the latter, and that the latter is the destiny of many of you.
>>919587
But you're going in this with the assumption that God must exist
Looking at this objectively, there's nothing about what's been said here to imply that's more likely than him not existing
>>919597
>hell references
You're literally scum, please kill yourself.
>>919598
You are correct. I walk into this knowing He exists, and wondering if the "proof" is actually a valid means by which one can know He exists.
I have come to the conclusion that it is not.
>>919597
I'm assuming that existence in comfort is better than existence in non-comfort for the sake of argument
But I wouldn't ever try to prove it as that would entail that one type of existence could be objectively better than another type
The point is that comparing what's better at existing between existence and non-existence doesn't answer anything except that exact question without already assuming that existence is good
OP here
Since this thread has been hijacked by religious people (literal retards) discussion is pretty much dead. I got some decent responses early on, though, which was nice.
>>919601
Do places in your experience disappear when you do not believe they exist?
No, if I were the scum you call me, I would say nothing, and allow you to slouch towards Gomorrah at your own pace.
>>919592
Are we really going to argue semantics?
>>919609
So I assume this was for a philosophy paper?
Just read the objections to the first meditation, you'll get a better mark and can cite some of the more random philosophers to impress your lecturers
And one day, maybe you'll be able to follow the second half of this thread!
>>919608
I think if you went to light people on fire, they would agree with you that not being on fire is a better state of existence.
I have actually seen people do this to demonstrate that maybe these monks and such aren't as removed from suffering as they claim to be.
>>919621
No, it wasn't for a paper, it was for own knowledge and understanding. The second half of this thread is just idiots getting sidetracked and being cunts.
>>919609
You start a thread on a board the discusses religion wondering if you can believe in God, and claim it is "hijacked" by religious "retards" who say yes, you can know God personally, because we do.
Ponderous.
>>919620
Yes.
This is philosophy.
If you mean a greater state of existence than you're obviously right
If you mean greater as in more perfect, then you're making a lot of presumptions and begging the question
>>919628
I'm pretty sure the things of God are not for you.
Have a nice day.
>>919631
Deities do not require religion - it is common knowledge that religion is fundamentally fucking retarded. Theism isn't, but religion certainly is.
>>919637
Show me where I advocated any religion.
>>919623
No, they'd agree it was a better state of comfort
And they would prefer a state of comfort
But someone's desires can't be said to necessarily correlate with the best state of existence without an impressive proof
>>919641
I don't know which person you are - but several posters have been making arguments specifically predicated on Christianity.
>>919643
Are you serious? Being set on fire means that your existence is ending in pain and flames and smoke. It is dying.
Being murdered is not a better state of existence than not being murdered.
>>919645
That's a religion to you? Do you even know what the definition of a religion is?
Ponderous.
>>919648
>neckbeard intensifies
Ponderous.
>>919646
Perhaps things only have so much 'existence' before they die
So when they are dying, they are consuming that existence at a greater rate and thus their state of existence is considerably greater than normal
I don't actually believe this, but again you're assuming things about existence is my point
>>919634
I'm not saying existence in it of itself is more perfect. But based on the definition of perfect it would be impossible for non existence to be perfect as to be perfect in the sense that a non existent thing cannot have any qualities or elements and cannot be absolute or complete as to apply any of these would be to make it existent.
>>919650
We are, actually. As human beings, is existence better when comfortable, or not comfortable? On fire, or not on fire? Are there conditions under which we would prefer to not have existed in the first place?
But again, these are not things God worries about. He is not consumed by comfort, or flammable, or having a miserable life in any way, shape or form.
When you go to an ontological proof of God, it is not really questionable whether existence, for God, is preferable to non-existence, for God.
He does not have the downside of existence that we do. He is not limited in any way as we are. He is not powerless, as we are.
So while people might rightly wish they had never been born, God never would.
Existence to God is greater than non-existence, and God indeed is a being greater than any being that can be imagined.
Descarte's a priori assumption is correct.
>>919654
I really just wanted to separate out "being on fire" from "being comfortable", as being comfortable extends your existence, while being on fire shortens it.
>>919668
Exactly. An existing God Who is Love loves more than a non-existing god who we think may indeed be love, but will never really know.
>>919668
What's the definition of perfect?
>>919679
10 out of 10 in the 10 ring.
>>919674
Why does something shortening x make it bad for x?
(you're assuming that the existence of x is better than its non-existence which is the conclusion you're trying to reach- circular argument)
>>919685
By placing myself in that situation. Would I rather be left alone, to exist a little longer, or be set on fire?
I can conceive of a situation where I would actually prefer the latter, but I cannot imagine a situation where God would.
I give myself two options, and pick the one I prefer, for whatever utilization maximizing scheme I operate under.
>>919679
Lacking no essential detail, corresponding to an ideal standard or concept, totality, being without fault or defect, absolute.
>>919685
Existence is inherently better than non-existence, this is both intuitive and clearly and distinctly obvious.
>>919390
>How does "I think, therefore I am" lead to "God exists," may I ask?
It doesn't, the Cogito is only an affirmation of the one thing that cannot be doubted. You are doubting your existence, therefore you are.
Descartes is attempting by his proof of God's existence to argue for the possibility of certain knowledge about things outside the certainty of the self, like the existence and similarity of physical world with man's perception of it, the validity of mathematics, etc by establishing that God does not deceive man's perception or reason.
>>919703
And by asserting that mankind has clear and distinct perception, lacing a deceitful God.
>>919696
>corresponding to an ideal standard
Where does this ideal standard originate from?
Are you gonna start quoting plato at me?
>>919543
Spinoza pls go away and inhale some more glass dust.
>>919708
>that name
>>919705
Are you saying human beings do not have the drive to stay alive? That we lack some sort of self-preservation instinct? Barring any mental illness, of course?
>>919714
I win the internet, yes?
>>919709
I simply mean the highest possible level of a quality. I would say a perfect level of a quality but that would be defining a word with itself now wouldn't it.
>>919709
It has no origin as you conceive of it, causality doesn't apply to an ideal in the proper sense.
Causality a concept itself is fucking stupid anyways, you can't really point to a cause. Hume had this one tight up. I think reality is really more correlational than anything else.
>>919700
>Existence is inherently better than non-existence
How would you know, have you ever experienced non-existence?
>intuitive and clearly and distinctly obvious.
I disagree. Clearly it is not distinctly obvious, or there would be universally no disagreement on the issue.
>>919732
There's isn't disagreement on existence - you're just being a fag.
>>919579
>Oh look, it's the Mona Lisa!
>Surely, it just randomly came together given enough time
>Heh, yeah that's it. Everyone else is a simpleton. I'm such a genius.
>>919715
You're missing the point, we've been through this
Why is being alive more perfect?
>>919724
What makes something a quality?
>>919727
But how can you claim existence of an ideal standard if you don't even know where it comes from?
And don't say God, cause all of these arguments act as deconstructions of Descartes' ontological argument for God's existence (no one likes circular arguments)
>>919533
To my mind nothingness is more perfect than existence: nothing exists outside or within it. No deterioration or change of state.
>>919763
This is what the people that think existence is better than non-existence need to answer
>>919739
>There's isn't disagreement on existence
You can't just say I don't disagree with you cause you're so right and plug your ears while I rape your argument and bring it to orgasm. Defend yourself.
>>919749
>implying that's not what happened
>>919762
>how can you claim existence of X if you don't even know where it comes from?
I personally don't know where gravity comes from, but I sure can claim it exists.
>>919779
You can observe gravity
You can't observe an ideal standard or measure it any way
>>919771
I personally don't have a refutation. Perhaps you're correct and this destroys Descartes' ontological argument. I can accept that.
>>919783
>You can observe gravity
No, you can observe objects affected by gravity.
Big difference.
>>919785
What does it mean to exist anyways?
>>919786
Same difference
You can observe the effect it has
And that's fine because gravity is a blanket term to refer to whatever causes the effects of gravity
Again, you still can't observe the effects of an ideal standard
>>919774
You nearly gave me a chuckle
>>919787
This is just a stupid question. Cogito Ergo Sum - I am a thinking thing, I exist, if I were to not exist I would not think.
>>919798
No, really. That's exactly what happened.
>>919787
Don't start
No philosopher I've ever talked to has a good answer to this
One of my lecturers gave me a quote by some famous philosopher that basically equated to 'anything that one conceives'
Existence is a stupid term
>>919802
Cogito ergo sum is a circular argument, it presumes the existence of an agent to think and then concludes the agent thinking must exist
Nietzscshe had a pretty good criticism too based on the language it uses
>>919806
Ok man.
>>919793
>you still can't observe the effects of an ideal standard
Are you sure? Maybe the effects of an ideal are just so ubiquitous that you take it's effects for granted.
Have you ever looked at two objects and considered one to be more beautiful than the other? Where does beauty come from?
For that matter, why can't gravity be considered a kind of ideal? Or entropy, or thermodynamics?
>>919809
>it presumes the existence of an agent to think
No. It simply states that it is self evident that since "I am" thinking, I am. It's just saying that it's the first thing you can really know for certain.
>>919826
But you can't. That's circular reasoning.
X thinks
I am X
Therefore I think
Therefore I am
Circular.
>>919826
>Have you ever looked at two objects and considered one to be more beautiful than the other? Where does beauty come from?
Preference
Hence why there's no objective 'hottest girl in the world'
You can have a personal ideal standard, but that's limited by you and therefore can't be universal
>For that matter, why can't gravity be considered a kind of ideal? Or entropy, or thermodynamics?
Because it has objective effects that can be empirically measured
Beauty does not
There are (allegedly) straight men that think Alexandra Daddario isn't attractive and won't get aroused by seeing her naked
There are no people that can reasonably show that a ball won't drop due to gravity
>>919826
>No. It simply states that it is self evident that since "I am" thinking, I am. It's just saying that it's the first thing you can really know for certain.
This - >>919843
There's nothing self evident here
Nietzsche's exact criticism is that it's impossible to state the action of thought without an agent doing it in Latin which leads to the presumption that the agent must exist
All we can observe is thought
That we are thinking is not self-evident
>>919843
lol
Do you know what self evident means? It's like A = A.
>>919863
But if we're observing thought, then we exist.
>>919867
It never proves that you're X or that X thinks or X exists
>>919754
Because I can eat more chocolate chip cookies being alive than I could being dead. And I really like chocolate chip cookies.
>>919869
Why?
The assumption again is that 'we' are the ones observing it
All that's happening is that thought's being observed
Because of the way language is structured, an agent is being snuck into the premise without being established
>>919768
I can love my children who exist more than I can love my children who do not exist.
>>919876
The agent is thinking.....therefore the agent exists.....
>>919848
>Preference
And some people consider some objects to be heavy whereas others consider those same objects to be light.
There is still an objective weight to them, gravity is no less subject to relativity than beauty is.
Are you gonna say that gravity isn't a universal?
>Beauty can't be empirically measured
We weren't able to empirically measure gravity for a long time, but that changed. What makes you think other abstracts are forever outside our power?
For that matter, it seems as if you're saying that all that exists is what we're currently capable of measuring. Did atoms or bacteria not exist before we could empirically observe them.
>>919876
But for thought to be observed, there has to be an observer. That observer is "me"
>>919881
being loved =/= being more perfect
>>919874
if you were non-existent, there would be no desire for chocolate chip cookies
The fulfillment of your desire seems good
But in reality,an unfulfilled desire is just bad and the removal of the bad makes you think it's good
But if there was no desire in the first place, there would be no bad to remove
>>919863
>That we are thinking is not self-evident
So you're saying that you can think and not exist at the same time?
>>919897
Yes, it is.
Love is the highest ideal.
God is Love.
>>919892
This is the entire point, you're presuming the agent exists in that premise without any explanation
Hence a circular argument
If you assume an agent exists to the do the thinking then concluding the agent exists is already assumed in your premise
How are you not getting this?
>>919897
Do you see how your view of existence depends on things that enhance your existence, or detract from it?
How is it you cannot merely accept that you exist?
How is it you cannot merely accept that God exists?
>>919907
I'm not presuming anything. The agent thinks...therefore the agent exists.
You really have a problem with "I think, therefore I am?"
>>919894
>We weren't able to empirically measure gravity for a long time, but that changed.
We've almost always bee able to empirically measure gravity
That's why scales have existed for so fucking long
>For that matter, it seems as if you're saying that all that exists is what we're currently capable of measuring. Did atoms or bacteria not exist before we could empirically observe them.
Postulating the existence of something we cannot perceive or measure (including the effects of) is pointless, yes
>>919896
How do you the observer is you?
And why do you assume there has to be an observer?
>>919907
>you're presuming the agent exists in that premise
Again, the indisputable fact that I am doubting my own existence is clearly fucking proof that I exist.
Because if I didn't exist, I couldn't fucking doubt that I did.
You ridiculous autistic fuckwad.
>>919898
This is a bigger question than it seems
Almost definitely not
However, if we're (as descartes tried) claiming complete scepticism then yes, one would have to somehow show that was impossible without any assumptions
>>919916
So, it would have been pointless for people to speculate that there might be little bugs in milk, and that pasteurizing the milk would be helpful.
>>919914
Yes
Because it assumes an agent despite claiming to be an argument from complete scepticism
It literally proves nothing except that knowledge is dependent on making some assumptions
>>919916
>scales have existed for so fucking long
But not always.
Besides, scales are clearly imperfect tools of measurement. What makes you think they're qualitatively different and necessarily better than our hands, which are just another tool we can use to measure releative weight?
>>919922
I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand this, but Descartes' argument is an argument starting from nothing
You're response is akin to claiming
>I obviously have feet cause I can see them and walk on them!
And if you agree with that, you shouldn't be in this thread and should take a philosophy 101 class
>>919925
For no reason?
Yes
But if people were getting sick, then trying to find an explanation serves a point
A supreme ideal serves no purpose other than explaining the man-made concept of perfect
>>919930
Because we can prove our senses are imperfect
>>919936
>I obviously have feet cause I can see them and walk on them!
Fucking retard, Descartes by this point has already done away both with the possibility of his body existing and the validity of his sense perception.
The problem here is you're a goddamn undergrad who can't think for himself and completely bought the "lol Descartes is le dumb XD" meme.
Apparently there are only ten of us in this thread guys...
>>919950
You're literally too retarded to understand that Descartes is assuming an I, a point that several noted and famous philosophers have mentioned, and you're calling me an undergrad who can't think for himself?
I don't know if you're trolling or just genuinely this stupid but either way, anyone can see how goddamn stupid your posts are
>>919950
>Fucking retard, Descartes by this point has already done away both with the possibility of his body existing and the validity of his sense perception.
The cogito is the start of Descartes' first meditations
He hasn't done anything yet by this point
Read some Descartes, grow up and never come back
>>919958
>Descartes is assuming an I
He doesn't have to.
Because without an "I" he couldn't assume anything in the first place.
>appeal to authority
definitely a sophomore.
>>919965
>buzzwords
You called me an undergrad who can't think for himself and now cite appeal to authority when I mention this point has been raised by some of the smartest, most influential philosophers?
Holy fuck, get wrekt faggot
And for the record, the entire point of the argument is that he's trying not to assume ANYTHING
>>919965
why are you still here? you've been BTFO several times now
>>919963
>The cogito is the start of Descartes' first meditations
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What, you mean the second meditation?
here kid, check em.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy#Meditation_II:_Concerning_the_Nature_of_the_Human_Mind:_That_the_mind_is_more_known_than_the_body
>>919929
It does not assume an agent.
You are the agent.
>>919942
And perhaps showing men that they cannot live up to it.
That may be important.
>>919981
Yes, but he's never proved you exist - hence why that's his conclusion
So he has to assume it
>>919986
Only if there is a need to show people they can be better
But I'll take your bait, where we find this ideal for which to judge people against if we cannot objectively perceive or measure it?
>>919987
>but he's never proved you exist
He doesn't prove you exist. He establishes that he necessarily exists given that he doubts his own existence.
WHICH HE COULD NOT DO IF HE DID NOT EXIST
>>919980
>latches onto a minor mistake to overcome his embarrassment and ignore being BTFO
>gets it wrong himself
First appeared in Discourse on the Method dickwad
>>919987
He doesn't have to assume he exists. Neither do you.
The word "sophomore" has been bandied about, aptly, in this thread.
>>919996
If he doubts his own existence, then he can't assume it to prove it!
What is hard to understand about this?
>>919990
It has to be given to us by God above, no? Maybe carved in stone?
>>919998
>i'm too stupid to understand basic philosophy so I'll call the opposition a sophomore to make myself feel smart
>>919999
Ugh, what a waste of quads.
So like, is this thread full of trolls or people pretending to be able to do philosophy and getting triggered when they're called out on it?
>spoonfeeding /his/
>There have been a number of criticisms of the argument. One concerns the nature of the step from "I am thinking" to "I exist." The contention is that this is a syllogistic inference, for it appears to require the extra premise: "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists", a premise Descartes did not justify. In fact, he conceded that there would indeed be an extra premise needed, but denied that the cogito is a syllogism (see below).
>To argue that the cogito is not a syllogism, one may call it self-evident that "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists". In plain English, it seems incoherent to actually doubt that one exists and is doubting. Strict skeptics maintain that only the property of 'thinking' is indubitably a property of the meditator (presumably, they imagine it possible that a thing thinks but does not exist). This countercriticism is similar to the ideas of Jaakko Hintikka, who offers a nonsyllogistic interpretation of cogito ergo sum. He claimed that one simply cannot doubt the proposition "I exist". To be mistaken about the proposition would mean something impossible: I do not exist, but I am still wrong.
>>920010
>Perhaps a more relevant contention is whether the "I" to which Descartes refers is justified. In Descartes, The Project of Pure Enquiry, Bernard Williams provides a history and full evaluation of this issue. Apparently, the first scholar who raised the problem was Pierre Gassendi. He "points out that recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. Were we to move from the observation that there is thinking occurring to the attribution of this thinking to a particular agent, we would simply assume what we set out to prove, namely, that there exists a particular person endowed with the capacity for thought". In other words, "the only claim that is indubitable here is the agent-independent claim that there is cognitive activity present".[20] The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be "it thinks" wherein the "it" could be an impersonal subject as in the sentence "It is raining." David Hume claims that the philosophers who argue for a self that can be found using reason are confusing "similarity" with "identity". This means that the similarity of our thoughts and the continuity of them in this similarity do not mean that we can identify ourselves as a self but that our thoughts are similar.
>/his/ claims to be the smartest board
>literally needs paragraphs from fucking wikipedia pasted in order to understand that cogito ergo sum is a contested argument
>>920025
the smartest of retards is still a retard.
>>920025
We aren't the smartest, we just have the most severe autism.
>>919997
It's restated in the Second Meditation, albeit not verbatum.
Sorry to trigger your sperglord rage.
>>920025
>claims to be the smartest board
when?
>>920099
Oh hey, he's back!
Are you gonna claim that you're smarter than Gassendi, Lichtenberg and Nietzsche now?
Are you gonna call them sophomores?
>>919452
>His entire basis for trusting clear and distinct perceptions relies on God existing and not deceiving him
Not true. He only uses God to prove that he has a body and that there must be some reality behind the things that his senses make him aware of.
He argues that ideas which are clear and distinct must exist, before he tries prove God exists.
>>920122
Argument's over bro, but for shits
“I can never be deceived; for every clear and distinct perception is without doubt something, and hence cannot come from nothing, but necessarily must have God as its author…”
>>920110
>Are you gonna claim that you're smarter than Nietzsche?
Yes. The guy got syphilis the first and only time he ever had sex cause hookers, lost his mind and had his sister babysit him till he died cause he couldn't handle being a wizard.
>Gassendi, Lichtenberg
I could honestly give less than a fuck about them.
Apparently you think you're smarter than Descartes, the guy who literally invented Cartesian Coordinates and Analytic Geometry.
>>920133
>some no-name fa, basement dweller shitposting on /his/ think he's smarter than some of the most respected philosophers of all time because he can't follow a basic argument
Kek
So let me guess, high school dropout? Cause you were too clever to waste your time on formal education right?
>>920145
kill yourself waste
>>920145
>Nietzsche
>respected
>>919545
Actually you do remember nonexistence. The issue is there is nothing for you to remember by definition.
Ergo it is objectively true that existence is superior to nonexistence as nonexistence cannot be superior by definition. The caveat to that though is that nonexistence is not inferior to existence either as nonexistence cannot be inferior by definition either. So by extension existence is simultaneously objectively inferior to nonexistence.
Nonexistence is essentially undefined. Experiencing nonexistence is the philosophical equivalent of dividing by zero.
>>920176
Interesting train of thought but the only conclusion that could be derived from that is that non-existence cannot be compared with existence
In which case the statement "it is more perfeect to exist than to not exist" has no truth value and cannot be logically examined
Which still destroys that interpretation of the ontological argument
>>919591
>See code, infer coder.
>See human artifact, infer human creator
>See universe, infer universe maker.
>See natural structure, for some reason infer intelligent creator
Man, I didn't realize this thread would turn into "I'm so retarded I don't understand the flaws of Cogito Ergo Sum": The Thread.
By the way, thanks to everyone who showed me the flaws with the Ontological argument, I can now still tip my atheism fedora in pride.
>>920210
To be fair, I'm pretty sure it's just one retard and one shitposter
>>919786
>No, you can observe objects affected by gravity.
Gravitational waves were observed for the first time like last month. Not sure if that counts as "observing gravity" you'd have to ask /sci/
>>919533
Not necessarily, the metaphysics of it is still debated.
That is, some think non-existence is an ascribable property, which in essence, would make non-existent things 'exist' in another sphere, as things past, present and future.
Kinda relates to Theory of Meaning's problem of empty names, though it still is unclear, it depends if you would consider a concept (i.e. The Current President of Antarctica) to be a property of existence.
>scroll through thread
>autist starts trying to claim that the cogito is free from criticism
>100 posts later
So is this thread the most embarrassing thread /his/ has ever had that isn't about the holocaust?
>>919922
>Again, the indisputable fact that I am doubting my own existence is clearly fucking proof that I exist.
>Because if I didn't exist, I couldn't fucking doubt that I did.
Nigger he's right. It's a flaw in English, Latin and French. It's difficult to state something without an agent.
I speak Irish, and once you translate it you can see this falls apart (Irish has a couple more grammatical ways of expressing tenses)
Translate "Cogito ergo sum" directly to Irish and the insertion of an agent is clear. "Déanaim Smaoineamh, mar sin tá mé ann" It's clumsy and the "I" is shown to be pretty much irrelevant. Also notable is the fact that you can't just say "I am" (Tá mé) meaning I exist.
In Irish there is another way to form the verb that doesn't rely on an agent, if we say "smaoinítear". The sentence "smaoinítear, mar sin tá mé ann" would translate to something like
>"thinking happens, therefore I am there"
or
>"Something is thought, therefore I am there"
which doesn't really follow.
hopefully that helps you see how the argument is flawed. It sounds right in English, French and Latin but language is always imperfect. Indo-European languages make extensive use of the copula which can cause similar confusions.
>>920174
>samefagging
was I pretending not to?
I just had another thought, you disgusting newfag.
>>920529
>Not sure if that counts as "observing gravity"
they were watching the fluctuation of subatomic particles if I'm not mistaken, you can't "see" gravity like you can an atom or a wavelength.
>>920719
>a flaw in English, Latin and French
You've only made a strawman out of an idea by poorly translating it out of it's native language.
I think the Arabs say something similar about the Koran.
>I speak Irish
sure thing paddy
>language is always imperfect
According to whom and by what measure?
>>921186
>by poorly translating it out of it's native language.
I translated it exactly. I'm fluent in both Irish and English and I know enough French and Latin to know what it means. The insertion of the agent "I" is more apparent in Irish which is why I mentioned it.
just read this and stop being gay.
>>920011
The second phrase, Nietzsches "it thinks" is where I got the "Smaoinítear". Again this is because there is a more precise way to say this in Irish
Also language is obviously imperfect you mong, stop being autistic. It's not like words carry some telepathic powers, it's all inference and implication.
>>919365
fucking wow. nice GET
>>919365
SONIC!
>>919365
>Aquinas
It's Anselm you ignorant piece of shit
>>919365
SONIC
SONIC
SONIC
>>919365
faggot I don't like you
Karin better
>>919365
*teleports behind you*
pshhhh... too easy...
>>919637
>an opinion is common knowledge
>>921908
Considering how much of this thread is people claiming assumptions are self-evident, that is far from the stupidest thing written in this thread
Like not even kinda close
>>921921
>A = A is an assumption!!
lol kid
>>919351
>Tell me why his ontological argument is faulty
Because he assumes:
1) that our human concept of "infinity" requires an infinite non-human being to implant the concept in our mind, and that our finite minds can't come up with the concept of "infinity" by combining "not" and "finite," because he can just tell that the concept "infinity" contains more reality than the concept "not finite."
2) that what we conceptualize in the abstract can, on its own, reveal new information about what exists in the non-abstract domain of reality - rather than requiring abstract concepts to be based first in reality, drawing their reliability from what is first encountered in the empirical world; that is, he doesn't sufficiently recognize that we can combine abstract concepts at whim without revealing anything about what exists in the concrete world independently of those abstract concepts.
>>921992
>i've never studied logical proofs but i'll spout them anyway cause there's no way I could be wrong
holy shit philosophy can be so fucking useless. Literally just mental masturbation of people bitching over nothing
>>923271
Normally people are surrounded by acclaimed philosophers in any philosophical discussion which prevents retards from spewing dipshit opinions and insulting anyone that criticises them
Anyone in a real-world, proper philosophy discussion will be educated enough that there is decent discourse
This thread is a very bad reflection
The concept of God implies that intelligence is more fundamental to reality than the universe itself. I don't see the reasoning behind that.Intelligence is the function of a physical form.
