|
|
Post by jonbain on Nov 18, 2022 14:52:42 GMT
Rene' Descartes had the method of deciding to abandon all that he knew. And to start from nothing, as a process to removing false ideas from the mind.
His first point is that even if everything is false around him, he himself must still exist.
Thus its not even feasible to suppose understanding can exist without conscious being.
Beyond that, God is proven simply because we know and use the concept of perfection most effectively in geometry.
The facts of how triangles are constructed in Euclidean and Pythagorean terms are beyond dispute.
....
Now I have simplified the arguments because I want to set a challenge beyond that foundation.
What else can you be utterly sure of beyond that as mentioned?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 23, 2022 21:11:11 GMT
Rene' Descartes had the method of deciding to abandon all that he knew. And to start from nothing, as a process to removing false ideas from the mind.
His first point is that even if everything is false around him, he himself must still exist.
Thus its not even feasible to suppose understanding can exist without conscious being.
Beyond that, God is proven simply because we know and use the concept of perfection most effectively in geometry.
The facts of how triangles are constructed in Euclidean and Pythagorean terms are beyond dispute.
....
Now I have simplified the arguments because I want to set a challenge beyond that foundation.
What else can you be utterly sure of beyond that as mentioned?
Change. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 23, 2022 21:19:12 GMT
I think Descartes's method may be expanded. Quite the same strategy had been used by one of Cartesian followers - a famous one bishop Berkeley.
Let's say p is a certain person (somewhere or elsewhere in time and space), so if p can doubt anything, then there is something that is out of doubt - those p's thoughts (hesitations, denies, etc), and it is true, that only nothing exists.
There are two ways to move further this thought. Let's choose the next one: if everything is false, then it is the same as everything is x. It doesn't really care what that x is, because being out of any compare or relations, that 'x' is semantically void. But this is a wrong way. That is why if everything is false, then there must be something (maybe not in this world, or not at the moment, etc) that is true - or the opposite.
This rule of contrast works for any metaphysical deity. Let's say L is L. If L is not L, then denying of L, or x (or any other alternatives) is L. So, for L to be L there must be anything else, that is not L. In other worlds, let's say if there's 'one'. So, if there are no 'twoes', 'threes', etc, then 'one' is not non-'x', or it is anything else. Such 'one' turns to be useless. So, 'one' is one only if there are at least some other numbers.
(Must be said it doesn't help us really much, because we've already trapped into two gaps: a) a problem with individuals or unique things, and b) platonic pre-existence of anything. I won't make this theme broader at the moment, but I want to underline that this discourse doesn't save the mail line of proving completely. It only helps to go further a little.)
Okay, having a requirement for p to be p, or for 'true' to be 'true', and so on, we have to say that for any possible discourse (or for any imaginary possible world) there must be a certain p that can doubt everything, confirming own's existence, and the existence of some other items. But we also may see that such p in any world is necessary. This means: for any world W there must be p. According to Descartes/Berkeley p = God.
|
|
