descartes 'cogito ergo sum' is the only thing in his book i agree with. its when he goes on to attempt to prove god that his argument is very flawed and imo worthless.



descartes arguments for god that i can remember are as follows:

-humans are incapable of dreaming up the concept of god without divine intervention.

This argument is stupid. it wouldnt have taken much more than some guy with an imagination watching the destructive power of a volcano or some other natural disaster, thinking that the very earth must be angry with them, and then dreaming up the idea of a guy using the powers of the earth to punish the people. The concept could easily grow from there.

-god is perfect in every way, existance is a perfection, therefore god must have it, so he must exist.

this is a cartesian circle if i ever saw one. in order for this argument to work in the first place it has to be assumed that god exists.

god exists-hes perfect-existance is perfection-god exists

so it doesnt work. besides that, you can hardly call existance a perfection. if i have a real apple and an imaginary apple, its stupid to say that the real apple has all the properties of the imaginary one, plus the property of existing. its better to say that the imaginary apple has no properties.

-some things are 'more real' than others. this wouldnt be possible unless there were a being that possessed perfect goodness and truth. That being is God.

this just assumes that his theory about subjective reality actually exists. If it doesnt exist, which is quite likely, then his whole argument becomes irrelevant. another cartesian circle.

-the universe is orderly, but orderly activity is the result of intelligent direction. The order of the universe is due to the intelligence of God.

this is the best argument he has, imo. unfortunately there are natural laws that govern the entire universe (physics, logic), that do the job whether god exists or not.

think about a triangle. a triangle would still have three sides whether it existed or not. even if triangles didnt exist, a triangle would still have inside angles adding up to 180, pythagoras' theorum would still apply.

Therefore god doesnt have to have an influence on the universe in order for it to progress logically.

in my opinion, descartes himself didnt believe in god. he just 'proved' it in order to stop negative throwbacks from the church and a very god fearing society.

i think you need to go back and read it *in order*

though am a little uneasy about many of descartes conclusions as well

the spirit controls the body through the pineal gland? right, try again descartes.

[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 11-02-2005).]

You're quit a bit late but, congratulations, you've made it.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You're quit a bit late but, congratulations, you've made it.

huh?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You're quit a bit late but, congratulations, you've made it.

What the hell are you talking about?

elaborate please

quote:Originally posted by Curry:

What the hell are you talking about?

elaborate please

It's just a tactful way to say: OLD.

pineal gland?

Aaaahhh,

Pineal Gland!



*Google*

Descartes Cogito is a pile of wank.

For a start, the 'I' in 'I am' was presupposed in the 'I' in 'I think', which makes it circular reasoning.

Also, it can't be proven that it is Descartes thinking, just that thinking is going on in the first place.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Descartes Cogito is a pile of wank.

For a start, the 'I' in 'I am' was presupposed in the 'I' in 'I think', which makes it circular reasoning.

Also, it can't be proven that it is Descartes thinking, just that thinking is going on in the first place.

well, all logical arguments rest upon premises. if you can't accept that you are, and that you think, than what can you accept?

you are getting it backwards. the fact that descartes thinks, proves that he is, whatever that means.

you think, therefore you exist in some form.

quote:this is a cartesian circle if i ever saw one. in order for this argument to work in the first place it has to be assumed that god exists.

god exists-hes perfect-existance is perfection-god exists

so it doesnt work. besides that, you can hardly call existance a perfection. if i have a real apple and an imaginary apple, its stupid to say that the real apple has all the properties of the imaginary one, plus the property of existing. its better to say that the imaginary apple has no properties.

Not to mention the fact that the idea of 'perfect' and other value-based assessments are purely subjective. I may think it's a better thing to exist than you do. I'm sure there are plenty of depressive teenagers who think existing is a downright wretched thing to be doing.

quote:-some things are 'more real' than others. this wouldnt be possible unless there were a being that possessed perfect goodness and truth. That being is God.

Heh, this is stupid. Everything is either real or not real. The objects we encounter in dreams may seem less real than waking reality, but that's because they're not real at all, and our illusion of them is through acquaintance with sense-data that represent them - but the sensa-data are false.

quote:Descartes Cogito is a pile of wank.

For a start, the 'I' in 'I am' was presupposed in the 'I' in 'I think', which makes it circular reasoning.

Also, it can't be proven that it is Descartes thinking, just that thinking is going on in the first place.



No, the point is that to be able to think that I think there must be some I to do the thinking. Therefore, I am, 'am' is just the first person of 'to be'.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 11-04-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Curry:

you think, therefore you exist in some form.

Simply because claiming your non-existence is fallacious according to the Law of Non-Contradiction does not mean that you do exist. It just means that you don't not exist.

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

Simply because claiming your non-existence is fallacious according to the Law of Non-Contradiction does not mean that you do exist. It just means that you don't not exist.

*brain explodes*