SALES, Miguel Agustin T.
Abstract
“Is the idea of God to be considered as a universal or not?”
My article is about Boethius’ problem of universals wherein the sense of this topic is to give emphasis on what should be God’s category, is it universal or particular? According to Boethius, universal is synonymous with the word general for it describes a whole of individuals, is accompanied through thinking and only exist in our minds. On the other hand, the individual things or particulars are those that exist outside of our minds that is specific or certain and is accompanied by the sense of sight. In the middle of Boethius problem of universals he came up with a question of, does the universals only exist in our minds or there is a thing outside
…show more content…
Or rather, do they exists inside or outside of a body of an object or to our bodies? To give clarification regarding this matter, there are said to be two kinds of incorporeal. The first one has to stay in the incorporeal or soul world such as God, soul, mind. The other one is that even they are said to be incorporeal, once they are separated from a body or bodies, the idea that they exist does not exists anymore. Examples are the surface, single qualities and number. The main problem of Boethius is that, does the so called genera and species exists or this are formed only through one’s thought and understanding? Boethius tried to make an argument regarding the existence and understanding of genera and species. The first was the argument against the universals. He said that genera and species cannot exist for the reason that if a thing is common to many things in one time or at the same time, it cannot be considered one for it is only to be considered one if a thing is a whole to many things because when we say that it is common it is synonymous with the word “most” meaning not all, just a majority or the typical while if it is said to be whole it talks about each and every one. From that basis Boethius
The Ontological Argument, which argues from a definition of God’s being to his existence, is the first type of argument we are going to examine. Since this argument was founded by Saint Anslem, we will be examining his writings. Saint Anslem starts by defining God as an all-perfect being, or rather as a being containing all conceivable perfections. Now if in addition of possessing all conceivable perfections t...
the body as an extension, and God as the supreme being. He attests that he came to these
The. His existence is seen as simply another property of his being. Just like omnipotence and omnipresent are the properties of the. One example that has been used to explain this is a triangle. The sand is a triangle.
...ience. Yet, what can be deduced is that it is there prior to our awareness of that which is there. It is both internal and external. The body on its own provide as the access with which the world is known. This connection of the body with the world is anchored on the reality that the body is there with and in the world. The experiences of the body is not something that you extract or signify, it is there simply because the body is there.
The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.
Dismayed by his poor fortune, Boethius’s question regarding how a just God could allow evil into His world generates the idea of a simultaneous yet omnipresent God. Boethius relates his experience with injustice with the actions of God saying, “It is nothing short of monstrous that god should look on while every criminal is allowed to achieve his purpose against the innocent. If this is so, it was hardly without reason that one of your household asked where evil comes from if there is a god, and where good comes from if there isn’t.”(Book 1, Prose 4)
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
The very fact that philosophers such as Descartes, Kant, Malcolm have been intrigued by the ontological argument strongly shows that it is a very important and complex argument which is in favour of the existence of God. Although a final and ultimate answer to the question of God’s existence has yet to be attained, it is still considered to be a remarkable argument.
This paper will attempt to state and explain the Cartesian Ontological Argument, its most promising lines of objection and some of the replies to these objections. Before studying the argument, it is important to notice that this type argument, unlike causal or teleological arguments, tries to be based on reason alone, not observation. Descartes considers that his a priori claims can derive the existence of God from the very concept of God.
The concept of God can be a difficult one to grasp especially in today's world - a world in which anyone that believes in God is trying to define exactly what God is. To even attempt to grasp such a concept, one must first recognize his own beliefs in respect to the following questions: Is God our creator? Is God omnipotent (all-powerful) or omniscient (all-knowing) or both? Does God care? Is God with us? Does God interfere with life on earth? These questions should be asked and carefully answered if one should truly wish to identify his specific beliefs in God's existence and persistence.
The aspect of ordered space versus uniform space is the first comparison drawn between the Sacred and Profane experience of life. Space has a sense of order for religious men because holy places gave the universe a fixed center and sacred territories were distinctly separated from the profane territories. Furthermore, the foundation on which religious men built their entire reality were heirophanies. This is because of their desire to connect to the transcendent being. Heirophanies revealed the glory of god’s power and each action that a religious man carried out in life was symbolically surmounted on this base, thereby ...
Ideas are what the mind is thinking of when something happens. Human minds know ideas not objects. George Berkeley discusses idea from the eye of the perceiver. We perceive ordinary objects such as houses, mountains and etc. We perceive only ideas therefore implying that ordinary objects are ideas. Through objects and things we are able to experience having ideas. The ideas represent external material objects which allows us to perceive them. According to Berkeley "esse est percipi" which translates to “to be is to be perceived" (Stanford, 2014). The existence of an idea cannot be separated from what is being perceived. If an idea or object is not perceived, then it does not exist. By sight I have the thoughts of light and hues with their few degrees and varieties. By touch I see and feel how hard and delicate, warmth and chilly, movement and resistant something is. Anything that we cannot perceive with our senses doesn 't exist. The soul cannot be perceived. However I wouldn 't go so far as to say "realize and recognize its presence." I think that instead of taking the literal approach that it could be extended to things that we do not yet know are there and yet are capable of being perceived "one day."
...wever, the only aspect I agree with is the structure of the soul. I adamantly disagree that the soul had past lives and is just merely remembering things in this current lifetime. I recognize that the body does need a source to move it and that source must be energy. If the soul is immortal and energy, (by the laws of thermodynamics) cannot be destroyed, perhaps energy and soul are synonymous and there is no such thing as soul, but mere energy in our bodies. I also don’t believe that what a plant has, whatever it is, can be defined as a soul as Aristotle claims. In whomever or whatever a soul dwells, that entity must be aware of its existence, and I don’t think plants know it’s alive. I also agree with Augustine that the soul genuinely desires happiness and that happiness is only the truth. A soul wouldn’t desire that which is false, if happiness is a natural good thing as Plato holds, then of course the soul desires that which is good. And since that which is good is true, I must agree that our soul desires that true thing-or being.
two distinct kinds of entities, bodies and minds (1). All objects that exist or can exist belong to one of these categories. The two forms are said to be mutually exclusive and commonly defined by fundamentally different characteristics, yet both are required to accurately define the world around us. According to Descartes, the body is a tangible physical substance (the unthinking thing), whereas the mind is an intangible non-physical substance (the thinking thing) and comes metaphysically before the body (3). The mind and body casually interact with one another while maintaining their distinctiveness: the eyes perceive objects and then focus the image to the pineal gland, where it transmits the information to the non-physical mind; the mind then may transmit a signal to the body, telling it what to do. The mind and body are independent from one another, yet they work in harmony; the mind receives signals from the body and the body responds to signals from the mind.
The real world of our universe one can present as consisting of the totality of the interconnected (through the known fundamental interactions) units of the nature, for example, photons, atoms, molecules, cells, living organisms, men, stars, galaxies and ets. Their materiality is shown, for example, in the outwards activity (the power), in which the units of nature come forward as integrated formations in the relation of other units of nature; their spirituality, enlightened through the materiality, in the form (in order of the growth of the spirituality) of the inside activity (that is of the spontaneous transitions into their different states), in the form of the senseorganized unity ( regulated by any laws), of the soul, and of the spirit. Different units of nature have different degrees of the spirituality, which are shown in the spontaneity, statisticality, selforganization, freedom of the will and so on, therefore one can say about corresponding spiritual aspects of any units of nature.