Descartes’ deductive proof of God is logically valid, but it is full of fallacies that raises some questions to its soundness. Descartes ontological argument as a proof of God is a continuation of Anselm
Anselm of Canterbury
Saint Anselm of Canterbury, also called Anselm of Aosta after his birthplace and Anselm of Bec after his monastery, was an Italian Benedictine monk, abbot, philosopher and theologian of the Catholic Church, who held the office of archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109. After his death, he was canonized as a saint; his feast day is 21 April.
Why does Descartes believe in God?
Descartes states that those that he can clearly and distinctly perceive are the only things that fully convince him as being true. From this concept, he constructs a logic that supposedly proves his hypothesis; the clear and distinct perception of the undoubted existence of God means that existence is inseparable from God.
Does Descartes believe in God?
René Descartes’ faith in God serves as a prime example of how faith need not be “blind” or unscientific. At the same time, Descartes’ thinking inspired changes in Western philosophy that have often directly challenged the Christian worldview.
What are Descartes weak points in his arguments?
Weaknesses of Descartes' Arguments Essays. 1641 Words7 Pages. Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32).
Does Descartes provide a convincing argument?
Whilst Descartes attempted to argue in favour of substance dualism, it can be said that his argument was ultimately weak, with substance monism being a far stronger viewpoint in the distinction between the mental and the physical. In this essay, I will attempt to argue that Descartes does not provide a convincing argument for the claim that ...
What is Descartes's ontological argument?
Descartes builds upon the original Anselmian ontological argument which is laid out as the following: 1. No being can be conceived that is greater that God. 2. This being either exists in mind, reality or both. 3. If the being only exists in the mind: a. Existing in mind and reality is better than only in the mind.
What is Descartes' ontology?
Descartes Ontology. Ontology is a word used by philosophers to describe the study of being or whether or not something or someone exists. Many philosophers have used ontology over the millennia to discuss the existence or being of everything from matter to morals to human beings. But the one being philosophers seem most interested in discussing is ...
Which philosophers have modified St. Anselm's ontological argument?
St Anselm's ontological argument has been modified and changed by many philosophers over the centuries, but Descartes is considered to be one of the key philosophers as far as capturing and furthering the essence of the argument. Lesson.
What do critics of ontological arguments often appeal to?
Critics of ontological arguments often appeal to uncertainty in the face of logic.
Which philosopher put more emphasis on the nature of being than the state of being?
There are similarities in both ways of stating the ontological argument, but it's easy to see that Descartes puts more emphasis on the nature of being than the state of being. In other words, Anselm was more concerned with the way in which God exists; whether in the mind or in reality or both.
Why is critique important in philosophy?
This is not only important but often welcomed by the argument's champion since critiques help to point out inconsistencies which help the originating philosopher to refine his or her argument.
Who is the most famous philosopher who wrote on the ontology of education?
Sipper holds a PhD in Education, a Master's of Education, and a Bachelor's in English. Most of his experience is in adult and post secondary education. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) is still considered one of the world's most revered philosophers.
Why is Descartes' argument not convincing?
Descartes' argument is however not convincing because even imaginary beings can have essential properties which can not be split off by the mind. This line of thinking implies that we have to allow objects like Superpegasus which leaves Descartes argument open to the overload objection.
Why is the ontological argument criticised?
The argument can also be criticised because the first premise is based on the theological assumption that God is a perfect being.
What is Descartes' starting point?
Descartes' starting point is the recognition that he has innate ideas. He admits that although these ideas might not correspond with something actually existing in the material world, the ideas themselves can not be ignored. Descartes thus finds in himself the idea of God as a supremely perfect being and the understanding that it belongs to his nature that he exists.
What are the objections to the ontological argument?
In the Fifth Objections the objector argues that ‘if a thing lacks existence, we do not say it is imperfect , or deprived of a perfection, but say instead that it is nothing at all' and that we can just as easily place existence among the perfections of a triangle.
Does Descartes use the masculine pronoun "he"?
Descartes does not use the masculin e third person pronoun ‘he', as it is implied in the third person conjugations of the Latin verbs. The feminine and neuter pronouns ‘she' and ‘it' are thus also implied when the pronoun ‘he'—which is the customary translation—is used in this paper
Did Descartes take the position of the Catholic Church?
Descartes seems to take the theological position of the Catho lic Church for granted—something which was probably wise in the latter days of the counter-reformation. In a letter to his friend Marin Mersenne (1588–1648), with whom Descartes studied at the Jesuit College of La Flèche, he expresses fear of the inquisition and decides not to publish his work Le Monde (The world) as it supported the theories of the recently condemned Galileo Galilei (1564–1642). 2
Who said the ontological argument is invalid?
In 1945, Bertrand Russell announced in his famous The History of Western Philosophy (a brilliant but sometimes eccentric and flawed book) that the ontological argument has been proved to be invalid, despite the fact that the soundness of the argument would be very good news indeed for philosophy:
Why does Harrelson argue that Descartes's argument is unsound?
Harrelson’s criticism of the Cartesian argument is that it fails because of its reliance on an interlocutor perceiving that if there is a supremely perfect being, this being would exist necessarily. He then concludes that the ontological argument is sometimes unsound because some interlocutors lack the appropriate perception. Harrelson writes:
What is Plantinga's reinstatement of the philosophical argument?
Plantinga’s reinstatement of the [ontological] argument, using logical techniques more modern than any available to Russell, serves as a salutary warning of the danger that awaits any historian of logic who declares a philosophical issue definitively closed. 2
Who is correct about Locke's attack on innate ideas?
Harrelson offers a helpful exposition of the work of Ralph Cudworth and Samuel Clark. He is probably correct that Locke’s attack on innate ideas undermined the popularity of the ontological argument, though there are many versions of the argument that do not require or presuppose the existence of innate ideas.
Who was wiser in his four volume New History of Western Philosophy?
While Russell pronounced the argument dead (albeit with regret), perhaps Anthony Kenny was wiser in his four volume New History of Western Philosophy when he ended the fourth volume with a warning to those who think the argument has been refuted:
Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to?
The real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thoughts. Every philosopher would like to say yes, because a philosopher’s job is to find out things about the world by thinking rather than observing. 1
What is the argument that all things that can be conceived exist?
The argument would imply that all things that can be conceived exist, have an ontological basis, outside of the mind. This of course is fallacious, as intrinsic fictional things can be conceived by the mind just as extrinsic existent things can.
What is the divine cogito?
If one assumes the divinity thinks, then its thinking activity (the divine Cogito) would be NECESSARY in the specific sense that it would be experienced by the divinity as always being closed to the possibility of complete cessation and non-existence and, as such, it would always provide the divinity with an intuitiion of its indubitably certain necessary personal existence (the divine Sum). In other words, he could have explained how the performance of a divine Cogito Sum would have provided an intuition of indubitably certain necessary personal existence (the divine Sum) based upon, emerging from, and restricted to the divine person's experience of the occurrence of its necessary thinking activity (the divine Cogito). The divine person's necessary thinking activity (the divine Cogito) would provide the divine person with an eternal intuition of the indubitable certainty of the divine person's necessary personal existence (the divine Sum).
Why can't monkeys know that it exists?
Technically, a monkey is incapable of knowing that it exists while thinking because it can't perform the Cogito Sum in the first person, present tense mode. In short, a monkey can't perform a monkey Cogito, so a monkey can't know that it exists.
Can I postulate the existence of a being that thinks necessarily and exists necessarily?
Certainly, I can postulate the existence of a being that thinks necessarily and exists necessarily, but I cannot have a DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of the necessary thinking activity which would simultaneously yield an intuition of the indubitably certain existence of such a necessary being. Again, I CAN PERFORM the "Cogito contingenter, Sum contingenter," but I CANNOT PERFORM the "Cogito necessario, Sum necessario." — charles ferraro
Is the fallacy of the 'ontological' argument convincing?
The (ontological) argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.
Does Descartes' ontological argument have experiential prerequisites?
But, unfortunately, Descartes' ontological argument lacks this indispensable experiential prerequisite. And, in response to Bertrand Russell, I submit that this is PRECISELY where the fallacy of the ontological argument lies!
The Simplicity of The “Argument”
- One of the hallmarks of Descartes’ version of the ontologicalargument is its simplicity. Indeed, it reads more like the report of anintuition than a formal proof. Descartes underscores the simplicity ofhis demonstration by comparing it to the way we ordinarily establishvery basic truths in arithmetic and geometry, such as that the numbertwo is even...
The Distinction Between Essence and Existence
- In the Fifth Meditation and elsewhere Descartes says that God’sexistence follows from the fact that existence is contained in the“true and immutable essence, nature, or form” of asupremely perfect being, just as it follows from the essence of atriangle that its angles equal two right angles. This way of puttingthe a prioriargument has puzzled commentators and has led toa livel…
Objections and replies
- Because of its simplicity, Descartes’ version of the ontologicalargument is commonly thought to be cruder and more obviously fallaciousthan the one put forward by Anselm in the eleventh century. But whenthe complete apparatus of the Cartesian system is brought forth, theargument proves itself to be quite resilient, at least on its ownterms. Indeed, Descartes’ version is superior …