(no subject)
Okay, so I'm reading this Augustine stuff (Soliloquies) for my Middle Ages class, and...well, I just really don't agree with it. I'm going to post a thought, and tell me if my logic makes sense to anyone else.
Augustine "proves" that "There cannot be something true if there is no truth; therefore, truth will exist forever."
BUT...truth only exists because there is also deception, right? There's a contrast between the two. If deception were to cease to exist, there would only be truth, thus negating the need to define it as "true" - there would no longer be "truth," only existence.
Right?
So truth isn't really immortal...not necessarily. And his argument about deception being similarly immortal is just piggybacking on the idea that since truth is immortal and there can be no truth without deception, deception must also be immortal...and since the soul is essential to being deceived, the sould, too, must be immortal.
Is this not rather circular logic? Stupid dead guys who wrote in Latin and tried to prove the truth of Christian doctrine...*mutters*
Augustine "proves" that "There cannot be something true if there is no truth; therefore, truth will exist forever."
BUT...truth only exists because there is also deception, right? There's a contrast between the two. If deception were to cease to exist, there would only be truth, thus negating the need to define it as "true" - there would no longer be "truth," only existence.
Right?
So truth isn't really immortal...not necessarily. And his argument about deception being similarly immortal is just piggybacking on the idea that since truth is immortal and there can be no truth without deception, deception must also be immortal...and since the soul is essential to being deceived, the sould, too, must be immortal.
Is this not rather circular logic? Stupid dead guys who wrote in Latin and tried to prove the truth of Christian doctrine...*mutters*