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). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument.
Meno confidently replies that that is so and that he would be able to explain it to Socrates. (72c) But we can tell Meno’s confusion after Socrates asks him whether or not he fully understands what the base commonality of virtues are. (72d) Meno tries to say that he does slightly understand but he’s just not grasping what it is Socrates is trying to get him to grab. This overly exaggerated answer by Meno shows that he wants to sound intelligent like he was trained, but he really has no idea what Socrates is saying. Here he’s trying to keep up his appearances while only halfheartedly admitting that he doesn’t know anything.
He criticises and successfully attacks the Cartesian version that in order for there to be a ‘supreme being’, existence must be predicate of God (the supreme being). Norman Malcolm then tried to save this argument by coming up with an argument which Davis seems to have demolished successfully. Although the argument does not seem to remain too strong in the light of these responses, we can say that although Anselm failed to show ‘the fool’ that God existed, he by acquiring more knowledge and understanding about the Christian beliefs seems to fortify his faith as a believer. Anselm’s second form of the argument seems has kept philosophers interested and fascinated with it throughout time. 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.
(Pratchett 51)” To the average person, it seems as though there are two choices of religion; to believe in God or not to believe in God. Pascal’s theory is that it is better to believe in God, even without reason, because in so believing, you lose nothing, whereas if you do not believe, you stand to lose significantly. On the surface, this wager seems to make an adequate amount of sense, but upon further examination, the argument begins to break down. Pascal states, “According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. (Pascal 444)” He does not think that reason is sufficient to prove God’s existence, nor is there solid evidence one way or the other.
McCloskey fails to prove his points against the cosmological argument, teleological argument, and the problem of evil as has could not present strong enough argument against them. Ultimately, all he proves is that theism stronger than he had thought. It is amazing how God made such a universe that we may never know the full complexity of His universe. References Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics.
It is something more, something that cannot be grasped himself or Euthyphro, sometimes good will is simply good will it is not necessarily holy. But the fact that Socrates did conclude that holiness is not simply good will he did provide a platform for beginning to think about the full meaning of holiness. I believe that another main message of this dialogue left by Socrates is that no one, including himself, can know everything about anything, and that there will always be more to learn. People should strive to come upon their own conclusions about things and think for themselves.
“Even if someone were able to transpose the whole content of faith into conceptual form, ti does not follow that he has comprehended faith, comprehended how he entered into it or how it entered into him” that is to say that to conceptually understand does not necessarily translate into being capable of the movements of faith. This problem is precisely the one addressed in Soren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, how does one become a man of faith, actually transcend the ethical into a supposedly undiscovered realm of faith. Especially in an age of Reason, where ideas are cheapened by their believability and proliferation, how does faith, which is paradoxical and incomprehensible by reason and philosophy alone, exist. Intrinsic to faith are contradictions especially when the Hegelian system, presented as the common philosophy of the age, becomes inherently problematic when presented with Abraham’s situation. Much of this is derived from the demand for certainty that accompanied the age of reason, this newly scientific age characterized by philosophical processes.
They do not try to find a quick explanation for things that occur yet they ponder possibilities and question norms of society and the legal systems in place. From this the Wisdom Christians seem to use Plato’s critical eye and instead of blindly accepting everything Paul has to say they question him. Pa... ... middle of paper ... ... for the world to end while simply preaching the word of the Lord to save as many souls before its end. In conclusion, both Plato and Paul’s ideas of wisdom are not exactly the same but they do share some similar philosophies. It is clear to see where a lot of the philosophy of the Wisdom Christians comes from by examining the work of Plato and Socrates.
Socrates claimed that he was on the mission given by the God at Delphi, and it would be ridiculous to say that he should be charged of atheism or impiety. And I think his defense was successful and persuasive. And therefore he was not being civil disobedient on the court. What about his past? For the two cases in the past, Socrates was either rejected the government as a whole, or the majority excluding him was being unlawful.
It is important to compare to the third meditation. A second point of view of not just an idea, but now Descartes himself. He asks why a perfect being such as God does not make a perfect being like Descartes himself. He questions why he is not perfect in that sense. Then he explains, it would take much arrogance to question the motives of God.