Dude. Many of Socrates' arguments suck and they suck much more obviously if you hear them second hand.
For example, consider Plato’s "Phaedo", where Socrates discusses whether his soul will survive the death of his body. We can see that his fellow philosopher Cebes, there is a disturbed at the possible finality of Socrates’ death.
This fear has nothing to do with the pain that is normally associated with death, for Socrates must face that either way. That the soul is reincarnated in many bodies has, at this stage in the dialogue, already been taken for granted. However, Cebes’ worry is that the soul cannot continue to reincarnate indefinitely and must, at some stage, expire: “And in that case, any man who faces death with confidence is foolish, unless he can prove that the soul is altogether immortal. If he cannot, a man about to die must of necessity always fear for his soul, lest the present separation of the soul from the body bring about the complete destruction of the soul.”
Socrates himself, in Plato’s "Apology" had claimed not to be much concerned either way: “There is good hope that death is a blessing, for it is one of two things: either the dead are nothing and have no perception of anything, or it is, as we are told, a change and a relocating for the soul from here to another place. If it is complete lack of perception, like a dreamless sleep, then death would be a great advantage. For I think that if one had to pick out that night during which a man slept soundly and did not dream, put beside it the other nights and days of his life, and then see how many days and nights had been better and more pleasant than that night, not only a private person but the great king would find them easy to count compared with the other days and nights.”
Socrates here has seemingly forgotten that a sound sleep normally indicates a good state of health. Nevertheless the blessing Socrates links with this first type of death pales in comparison to the other kind of death where Socrates has the opportunity to converse with his heroes. For such an opportunity he is “willing to die many times” .
Socrates actually chastises those who fear death for their implicit pride: “To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils.”
Since Socrates appears to consider there to be only two possible options to which one should give credence and to have good reason not to fear either of them, we might wonder what those who fear death are really claiming to know. One might presume that Socrates is recognising that the majority of people do not share his comfort in a death where one ceases to be, and is chastising them for presuming that death must involve this first option (since Socrates seems to more convinced of the latter himself).
So as you can see when you don't go into Socrates' dialogues instantly presuming he's brilliant, you can rather more easily notice that his arguments are often rather tangled.
How surprising is it then to find that St. Augustine's arguments are similarly tangled? We are speaking with the benefit of over 20 centuries of philosophical thought to draw on. Both Socrates and Augustine were early pioneers, y'know?
If you are going to try to dismiss these old pioneers, it would be more impressive if you were able to properly examining the source material rather than just saying "Augustine's argument sounds crap". The principle of the straw man is that is that if a great thinker's argument sounds too ridiculous for anyone to take seriously, you probably haven't understood it properly. Sure, it doesn't always work that way, but if you are going from second hand reports you aren't in a good position to judge.
If you find an ontological argument that isn't crap, you can let me know about it. I've read Socrates waxing ontological before, and it was crap. His pragmatism and general attitude toward life are most of what I admire about him.
If you find an ontological argument that isn't crap, you can let me know about it. I've read Socrates waxing ontological before, and it was crap.
Um... what? Augustine predates the ontological argument (as does Socrates). Anselm is believed to have been influenced by Augustine (as were most Christian philosophers around that time), but Anselm's ontological argument is generally viewed as being his original idea. Augustine's arguments more often revolve around cosmology. Though he didn't really try to prove God's existence so much as work out what God's true nature must be.
You didn't mean to write Aquinas by any chance, did you?
If Aquinas was the one you meant, he was actually a damn good writer and you really ought to check out the original material (and get his name right while you are at it!).
Prior to that Aquinas had attempted to establish that: 1) The existence of God is NOT self-evident. While "God exists" is technically self-evident because "the predicate is the same as the subject" (ontological argument which Aquinas promises to tackle later on in his "five ways"), it is not self-evident to us because it must first be demonstrated what God's essence is. (Interestingly, since no one was about to come out and say "I don't believe in God - and certainly weren't going to write it down and get published - Aquinas has to go to the Bible to find an example of atheism. The old "fool hath said in his heart" verse is used to demonstrate that clearly God's existent is not self-evident for some people...) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q2_A1.html
2) It CAN be demonstrated that God exists. (Only in theory though. The actual demonstrations are meant to be the "five ways" themselves.) Basically Aquinas is dismissing the first half of the Douglas Adams argument which said God's existence cannot be proven because it is purely a matter of faith (and necessarily so). Aquinas argues that the articles of faith demand that God's existence be already known. Based on St. Paul's assertion that God can be known through his creation, Aquinas insists that God's existence must be in some way demonstrable. Aquinas asserts that the means of demonstration must be through "a priori" reasoning (pure logic) concerning causes and "a posteriori" reasoning (from experience) concerning effects which help us understand their prior cause. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q2_A2.html
In each section Aquinas poses a question. The he gives reasons for choosing the opposite view to his own. Then he explains why his view differs. Then he tackles the previous mentioned alternate views one by one.
For example, consider Plato’s "Phaedo", where Socrates discusses whether his soul will survive the death of his body. We can see that his fellow philosopher Cebes, there is a disturbed at the possible finality of Socrates’ death.
This fear has nothing to do with the pain that is normally associated with death, for Socrates must face that either way. That the soul is reincarnated in many bodies has, at this stage in the dialogue, already been taken for granted. However, Cebes’ worry is that the soul cannot continue to reincarnate indefinitely and must, at some stage, expire:
“And in that case, any man who faces death with confidence is foolish, unless he can prove that the soul is altogether immortal. If he cannot, a man about to die must of necessity always fear for his soul, lest the present separation of the soul from the body bring about the complete destruction of the soul.”
Socrates himself, in Plato’s "Apology" had claimed not to be much concerned either way:
“There is good hope that death is a blessing, for it is one of two things: either the dead are nothing and have no perception of anything, or it is, as we are told, a change and a relocating for the soul from here to another place. If it is complete lack of perception, like a dreamless sleep, then death would be a great advantage. For I think that if one had to pick out that night during which a man slept soundly and did not dream, put beside it the other nights and days of his life, and then see how many days and nights had been better and more pleasant than that night, not only a private person but the great king would find them easy to count compared with the other days and nights.”
Socrates here has seemingly forgotten that a sound sleep normally indicates a good state of health. Nevertheless the blessing Socrates links with this first type of death pales in comparison to the other kind of death where Socrates has the opportunity to converse with his heroes. For such an opportunity he is “willing to die many times” .
Socrates actually chastises those who fear death for their implicit pride:
“To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils.”
Since Socrates appears to consider there to be only two possible options to which one should give credence and to have good reason not to fear either of them, we might wonder what those who fear death are really claiming to know. One might presume that Socrates is recognising that the majority of people do not share his comfort in a death where one ceases to be, and is chastising them for presuming that death must involve this first option (since Socrates seems to more convinced of the latter himself).
So as you can see when you don't go into Socrates' dialogues instantly presuming he's brilliant, you can rather more easily notice that his arguments are often rather tangled.
How surprising is it then to find that St. Augustine's arguments are similarly tangled? We are speaking with the benefit of over 20 centuries of philosophical thought to draw on. Both Socrates and Augustine were early pioneers, y'know?
If you are going to try to dismiss these old pioneers, it would be more impressive if you were able to properly examining the source material rather than just saying "Augustine's argument sounds crap". The principle of the straw man is that is that if a great thinker's argument sounds too ridiculous for anyone to take seriously, you probably haven't understood it properly. Sure, it doesn't always work that way, but if you are going from second hand reports you aren't in a good position to judge.
Reply
Reply
Um... what? Augustine predates the ontological argument (as does Socrates). Anselm is believed to have been influenced by Augustine (as were most Christian philosophers around that time), but Anselm's ontological argument is generally viewed as being his original idea. Augustine's arguments more often revolve around cosmology. Though he didn't really try to prove God's existence so much as work out what God's true nature must be.
You didn't mean to write Aquinas by any chance, did you?
Reply
Reply
Okay so the actual five ways are here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q2_A3.html
Prior to that Aquinas had attempted to establish that:
1) The existence of God is NOT self-evident. While "God exists" is technically self-evident because "the predicate is the same as the subject" (ontological argument which Aquinas promises to tackle later on in his "five ways"), it is not self-evident to us because it must first be demonstrated what God's essence is.
(Interestingly, since no one was about to come out and say "I don't believe in God - and certainly weren't going to write it down and get published - Aquinas has to go to the Bible to find an example of atheism. The old "fool hath said in his heart" verse is used to demonstrate that clearly God's existent is not self-evident for some people...)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q2_A1.html
2) It CAN be demonstrated that God exists. (Only in theory though. The actual demonstrations are meant to be the "five ways" themselves.) Basically Aquinas is dismissing the first half of the Douglas Adams argument which said God's existence cannot be proven because it is purely a matter of faith (and necessarily so). Aquinas argues that the articles of faith demand that God's existence be already known. Based on St. Paul's assertion that God can be known through his creation, Aquinas insists that God's existence must be in some way demonstrable. Aquinas asserts that the means of demonstration must be through "a priori" reasoning (pure logic) concerning causes and "a posteriori" reasoning (from experience) concerning effects which help us understand their prior cause.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q2_A2.html
In each section Aquinas poses a question. The he gives reasons for choosing the opposite view to his own. Then he explains why his view differs. Then he tackles the previous mentioned alternate views one by one.
See what you think. :)
Reply
Leave a comment