The True, The Good, The Real & The...Logically Sound?
In keeping with the not-so-tradition of somewhat controversial (or at least mentally stimulating) forays into all things logical and philosophical that seems to have been the collective outgrowth of the deadlines and due-dates pressing down on my already chronically fatigued & disinterested brain, and in celebration of Sarah's Albuquerque Beatnik Friday-Night Philosophy Club (boo, Nietzsche!), I am going to present to you something to which I vaguely alluded in Ye Olde St. Louis, and which may prove interesting.
It is an ancient notion, but was presented to me in a somewhat unique and oh-so-cherishable forum during the summer of twenty ought-three at the University of Ashland, Ohio.
Sans further ado, Descartes/The Highly Self-Assured Dr. Jeffrey Tiel's EASY TEN STEP LOGICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD:
(Verbatim from a wrinkled 8 1/2" x 11" Photo-Copy. The ideas, of course, belong to the good Monsieur Rene of geometric fame, the audacity/brilliance to present said ideas in an easily disseminated manner wholly copyright said middle-aged professor of philosophy)
"Third Meditation Argument for God's Existence
[Jessi's Edit: from Meditations on First Philosophy]
A. Short Form
1. I have the idea of an actually infinite, eternal, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent being by whom all things exist that are distinct from him (i.e., God).
2. The only possible way for me to possess this idea is if God himself is its original cause.
3. Therefore, God exists.
B. Long Form
1. Something cannot come from nothing [Edit: I don't know the proper logical term for this, and I don't remember what "syllogisms" are--this is the thesis/premise of the argument, Descartes' "basic truth" from which all further/higher truth (e.g. the answers to the Big Questions) can be deduced...or perhaps induced? It has been quite some while since Bacon, as well!!!)]
2. If something cannot come from nothing, then the cause of any idea has to have as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality.
3. Therefore, the cuase of any idea has to have as much [italics are my own] formal reality* as the idea has objective reality.**
4. I have the idea of an actually infinite, eternal, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent being by whom I and everything else that exists other than him have been created (i.e., God).
5. I do not possess as much formal reality as this idea has objective reality.
6. Therefore, the cause of this idea must be an actually infinite being.
7. Only God has as much formal reality as the idea of God has objective reality.
8. Therefore, God caused my idea of God.
9. If God caused (and is preserving me with the idea) the idea of God within me, then God exists.
10. Therefore, God exists.
[Dr. Tiel's Notes:]
* the formal reality of a thing measures its metaphysical dependence on other things. So, an idea of something has to have a mind to think it, so that it metaphysically depends on being thought by a mind, but a mind does not depend on its thinking that particular idea. So, a mind has greater formal reality than an idea. Descartes conceives of three levels of formal reality. Modes (like ideas of minds) have the least, finite substances more, and infinite substances the most.
** the objective reality of an idea is the measure of the reality of the object of the idea's formal reality. An object of an idea is what the idea is of, e.g. the object of the idea of Frog [insert: Froffit] is a frog [stuffed animal]. The objective reality of the idea of a frog is proportionate to what a real frog's formal reality would be, namely a finite substance. But remember, that all ideas are the same in formal reality, insofar as they are simply ideas. But they differ vastly at the level of objective reality.
The Principle: the cause of any idea has to have an amount of formal reality that is proportionate (i.e., equal or greater) to the idea's objective reality. So, since the objective reality of the idea of God is the maximum amount of objective reality (given the fact that God is an infinite substance), then only God (an actual infinite substance) could have originally produced the idea."
GO.
(Possible concerns:
1. Substantive responses to Descartes' ideas/methods?
2. Procedural approaches of philosophy--why do these sort of proofs matter, and is view of wisdom/methods of knowing implied by this sort of exercise?
3. Isn't it lovely to have a 10-step, wallet-sized proof for the existence of God? If the proof is innately logical, and based on logical axioms, how is that one could continue to "deny" the existence of a God? Does not agnosticism/insert-your-belief then correlate to the position of "faith"?
4. Should this type of philosophical proof (quotation marks optional) be studied in isolation? Obviously, mathematical proofs for God do not constitute entire religious systems alone...)
Please be well and beautiful!
With Nostalgia,
Jessi
Post-Script: Oh, objectively-realized-lordie-me, I've a question for the lot of you! I have been visited (in my mid-March college anxiety! Huzzah!) by a vision of the first night of TASP, in which we all (minus Nisha, our late arrival) went on that epic dusk walk around who-knows-what-neighborhood. I remember linking arms with Doug, tripping on tree roots, tagging along with Adam and Josh, and horrifying David and some other then-still-unfamiliar TASPer with my tales of rural childhood & pet-slaughtering. But here's the question: what on earth happened the first night of TASP? Did we go to bed early, or stay up late? I can't imagine it at all, long before Lounge Culture and Destructive Nonsleeping Habits had been established! Ohhhhhhhh, time, you are a brute!
It is an ancient notion, but was presented to me in a somewhat unique and oh-so-cherishable forum during the summer of twenty ought-three at the University of Ashland, Ohio.
Sans further ado, Descartes/The Highly Self-Assured Dr. Jeffrey Tiel's EASY TEN STEP LOGICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD:
(Verbatim from a wrinkled 8 1/2" x 11" Photo-Copy. The ideas, of course, belong to the good Monsieur Rene of geometric fame, the audacity/brilliance to present said ideas in an easily disseminated manner wholly copyright said middle-aged professor of philosophy)
"Third Meditation Argument for God's Existence
[Jessi's Edit: from Meditations on First Philosophy]
A. Short Form
1. I have the idea of an actually infinite, eternal, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent being by whom all things exist that are distinct from him (i.e., God).
2. The only possible way for me to possess this idea is if God himself is its original cause.
3. Therefore, God exists.
B. Long Form
1. Something cannot come from nothing [Edit: I don't know the proper logical term for this, and I don't remember what "syllogisms" are--this is the thesis/premise of the argument, Descartes' "basic truth" from which all further/higher truth (e.g. the answers to the Big Questions) can be deduced...or perhaps induced? It has been quite some while since Bacon, as well!!!)]
2. If something cannot come from nothing, then the cause of any idea has to have as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality.
3. Therefore, the cuase of any idea has to have as much [italics are my own] formal reality* as the idea has objective reality.**
4. I have the idea of an actually infinite, eternal, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent being by whom I and everything else that exists other than him have been created (i.e., God).
5. I do not possess as much formal reality as this idea has objective reality.
6. Therefore, the cause of this idea must be an actually infinite being.
7. Only God has as much formal reality as the idea of God has objective reality.
8. Therefore, God caused my idea of God.
9. If God caused (and is preserving me with the idea) the idea of God within me, then God exists.
10. Therefore, God exists.
[Dr. Tiel's Notes:]
* the formal reality of a thing measures its metaphysical dependence on other things. So, an idea of something has to have a mind to think it, so that it metaphysically depends on being thought by a mind, but a mind does not depend on its thinking that particular idea. So, a mind has greater formal reality than an idea. Descartes conceives of three levels of formal reality. Modes (like ideas of minds) have the least, finite substances more, and infinite substances the most.
** the objective reality of an idea is the measure of the reality of the object of the idea's formal reality. An object of an idea is what the idea is of, e.g. the object of the idea of Frog [insert: Froffit] is a frog [stuffed animal]. The objective reality of the idea of a frog is proportionate to what a real frog's formal reality would be, namely a finite substance. But remember, that all ideas are the same in formal reality, insofar as they are simply ideas. But they differ vastly at the level of objective reality.
The Principle: the cause of any idea has to have an amount of formal reality that is proportionate (i.e., equal or greater) to the idea's objective reality. So, since the objective reality of the idea of God is the maximum amount of objective reality (given the fact that God is an infinite substance), then only God (an actual infinite substance) could have originally produced the idea."
GO.
(Possible concerns:
1. Substantive responses to Descartes' ideas/methods?
2. Procedural approaches of philosophy--why do these sort of proofs matter, and is view of wisdom/methods of knowing implied by this sort of exercise?
3. Isn't it lovely to have a 10-step, wallet-sized proof for the existence of God? If the proof is innately logical, and based on logical axioms, how is that one could continue to "deny" the existence of a God? Does not agnosticism/insert-your-belief then correlate to the position of "faith"?
4. Should this type of philosophical proof (quotation marks optional) be studied in isolation? Obviously, mathematical proofs for God do not constitute entire religious systems alone...)
Please be well and beautiful!
With Nostalgia,
Jessi
Post-Script: Oh, objectively-realized-lordie-me, I've a question for the lot of you! I have been visited (in my mid-March college anxiety! Huzzah!) by a vision of the first night of TASP, in which we all (minus Nisha, our late arrival) went on that epic dusk walk around who-knows-what-neighborhood. I remember linking arms with Doug, tripping on tree roots, tagging along with Adam and Josh, and horrifying David and some other then-still-unfamiliar TASPer with my tales of rural childhood & pet-slaughtering. But here's the question: what on earth happened the first night of TASP? Did we go to bed early, or stay up late? I can't imagine it at all, long before Lounge Culture and Destructive Nonsleeping Habits had been established! Ohhhhhhhh, time, you are a brute!
posted by goodbye, goodbye at 5:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home