1) As well as there being an end to the causal chain, the cause must contain within it the reality and all qualities of that which exists, just like an idea must possess actuality or formal reality in order to exist. If an idea is more perfect than it’s possessor, that which is more perfect must have put it there. Just like physical causes of a stone containing what can be a stone in reality, it is applicable to the notion of ideas containing all that is reality or existent. This, although arguably non-transferable, makes an idea just as real. 2) This passage, for the most part, discusses what has been coined the Trademark argument, an attempt to prove the existence of God through an idea. Firstly, he forms what would come to be known as …show more content…
The final cause is what the aim or purpose of the mug is, a successful receptacle to contain liquid. Finally, the formal cause, which intends to distinguish what makes the mug a mug, the features of this mug is its impermeable container, moulded cylindrically and its handle. Together these make the total cause, but all of them in different ways contain reality despite their different states. Descartes also discusses the apparent impossibility of an effect (in any form) not owing its reality to anything. Nothing cannot be the cause of something; for reality of any degree owes its reality to that which is it’s cause; and that cause contains or possesses the degree of reality (or more) that it produces. This is also how ideas work, according to Descartes. Ideas have been placed by that which produces those things and that which can conceive reality of. Just because an idea doesn’t contain physical, formal, or actual reality, its not any less real; it is simply a transferral of the reality. Before presenting Descartes given example, it is important to discuss the technical imagery he projects using terms like formal or objective reality. Reality is not a black and white subject; it can be broken down into degrees or types where some things appear to be more real, or contain more reality, than other. Formal reality is virtuous of what it is whether that is finite or infinite substances or modes, all varying in degree. It
1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)
Descartes argues that some ideas are more real than others. These ideas are those that represent substances and contain more objective reality. These ideas are first modes or accidents, finite substance, and infinite substance. Descartes
During the 1800th century, William Paley, an English philosopher of religion and ethics, wrote the essay The Argument from Design. In The Argument from Design, Paley tries to prove the existence of a supreme being through the development of a special kind of argument known as the teleological argument. The teleological argument is argument by analogy, an argument based on the similarities between two different subjects. This essay purposefully attempts to break down Paley’s argument and does so in the following manner: firstly, Paley’s basis for the teleological argument is introduced; secondly, Paley’s argument is derived and analyzed; thirdly, the connection between Paley’s argument and the existence of a supreme being is made; and
Descartes is considering that all of his experiences could be false and that everything is just the invention of a powerful being. This resulted in this argument:
From Descartes point of view, he thinks that it makes sense to talk of degrees of reality to qualify the above assumptions, and he sometimes equates this with talk of degrees of perfection. Thus, he brings God back into the picture. The ideas, then, could come from only God, or from another being superior to humans but inferior to God. But this, too, is impossible, argues Descartes, as if it were the case that God produces the ideas of bodies in humans, then the very strong inclination we have towards believing that the idea-producing bodies resemble the ideas we have would be false and thus God would be allowing us to be deceived which is not permissible. The same would apply if any other being were producing
Truth, what is truth? This question itself has a thousand answers, no person can ever be sure of what truth is rather, truth can be justified, it can checked for reliability with strong evidences and logic. If the evidence proves to be accurate then it can be established that a certain answer is the truth. However, have we ever tried to think about what intrigues us to seek the truth? To think about a question and set foot firmly on the path of knowledge. Definitely it has! That was the very cause itself which is why this world has witnessed some of the greatest philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates etc. along with the school of thought. The ability to think and reason is one of the greatest ability humans have, it is what
Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in “The Five Ways” to present arguments to prove God’s existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian) God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas’s “Cosmological Argument” and Paley’s “Argument from Design” have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their
Rene Descartes’ third meditation from his book Meditations on First Philosophy, examines Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. The purpose of this essay will be to explore Descartes’ reasoning and proofs of God’s existence. In the third meditation, Descartes states two arguments attempting to prove God’s existence, the Trademark argument and the traditional Cosmological argument. Although his arguments are strong and relatively truthful, they do no prove the existence of God.
Descartes utilizes another rule in his thought process which states that objective reality cannot exist without formal reality. By this he means that we cannot form an idea without a cause. Assuming that God does exist would be an example of a Formal reality. Whereas the idea of God, is considered objective reality because it represents an infinite substance. Ideas themselves automatically have objective reality because the idea itself represents some reality. Also, the more perfect ideas cannot come from the less perfect; this is called The Causal
Most major arguments of God are rooted in the existence, or lack thereof. However there has been a continuous debate regarding the specific characteristics of God. In this debate, Charles Hartshorne, Alfred North Whitehead, and other the processed theologians oppose Anselm, Augustine, and other classic theologians. Although there are many points of disagreement, there are some characteristics for which both sides can agree upon. I will show one strong point of agreement and one strong point of opposition, and allow you the opportunity to decide for yourself how different, or similar, these two camps are.
In the fourth premise Descartes states that indeed, the cause of this idea must contain at least as much formal reality as the idea contains objective reality. Formal and objective are used in a different context than what we are used to. “The formal properties of an idea are the properties it has as a mode of consciousness” (Thompson, 31) Formal reality is properties or modes that ideas have. In contrast, objective reality focuses on what an idea represents or the content of the ideas. “Descartes uses the phrase objective properties of an idea to stand for the content of the idea or what the idea is of” (Thompson, 31). There are also varying degrees of formal and objective reality. Modes, finite substances and infinite substances all have varying degrees formal and objective reality. Similarly, modes are considered to be the lowest type of both objective and formal reality, followed by finite and then by infinite substances. To put forth an example, a dragon has the objective reality of an idea of a substance. This is so even though we know that dragons do not exist. However, if hypothetically they
The second argument is for the notion that the existence of God can be demonstrated. It states that everything has a cause. He claims that by using the theory of cause and effect we can demonstrate the existence of God. If we say that every effect has a cause, we can go further and further to infinity. But because of our own logic, we know that this is not true. We know that it must end somewhere. That somewhere is a first cause, and that cause is God. This is very similar to the idea of the unmoved mover. He goes on to say that through the effects, we can demonstrate that God does exist, but we cannot know what God is like.
Descartes separates his notion of ideas in two categories: the formal or material and objective. The formal and material notion is that all ideas are the same. The objective notion is that all ideas are different. Considered formally, ideas are the content of the activity of thinking and involved in the cogito. These ideas are clear and distinct. When ideas are considered objectively, on the other hand, they are the mental representatives of things that really exist. Therefore, the connections between ideas yield truths when they correspond to the realities of the world in which we live. Ideas do not come from experience, but are found within intellect itself. Descartes, however, states that these clear and distinct ideas do not necessarily correspond to realities, as there may be an omnipotent deceiver.
The distinction between formal and objective reality should be laid out from the beginning in order to grasp Descartes’ argument. When talking about the forms of reality, Descartes is differentiating between two ways of existing; mostly being independent or dependent to exist. Formal reality reflects the degree of independence in something’s existence. In other words, the more formal reality something has, the fewer things it needs to exist. Formal reality can be applied to everything, in different degrees, however. As for objective reality, it can only be applied to ideas as it basically is a representation of something; an object of thought. With this being said, an objective reality of an idea is equal to the formal reality of the thing that the idea is about.