Pretty sure the original source would be available for free online. Which bit of Augustine are you using here? (I've only ever attempted to read his "Confesssions" and I must admit I couldn't be arsed with much of it.)
Um. It's a vague paraphrase of everything I've heard second-hand about him. Presumably if it were much better than this, I'd have heard something more impressive by now.
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
( ... )
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.
Yeah so, to sum up Aquinas' whole argument very quickly through careful editing (he actually has FIVE arguments or "ways", though these arguments are supposed to back each other up rather than being five separate attempts at a proof) it goes as follows:
The first way is the argument from motion. Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.... If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover.... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
To sum up you either have a beginning of the universe or an infinite regress. Aquinas rules out the infinite regress (and interestingly enough he would consider himself to be supported by occam's razor).
The second way is the nature of the efficient cause.There is no case known (neither is it,
( ... )
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. There is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost Being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in Being... This whole "Being" thing strikes me as bit too much of an arbitrary wild card tbh. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
Yeaaaah... Not buying the "maximum heat required for all hot things" argument. Are the sparks from two pieces of flint really at "maximum heat"? I don't think so...
The fifth way is the governance of the world.We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way
( ... )
I'm not sure which of them it was. Actually, the thing I'm thinking of is more about the problem of evil. And the solution is that God transcends understanding, and "Good" doesn't even mean the same thing anymore when it refers to God, so you can't even question it or criticize it from a human's POV. Which as all well and all, but at that point, you shouldn't even bother trying to talk about it in the first place, or even claiming to mean anything when you say "God exists" in the first place.
As the philosopher of religion Peter Vardy puts it, a good deckchair and a good grape are not the same thing. A good deckchair does not need to taste nice, but it must not flatten when you sit on it. Not so, however, when we are dealing with a good grape...
The problem is that we are not in a position to judge what makes a God good (apparently) and since God is supposedly perfect that means that God suffers from no privation. (On these grounds the devil cannot be 100% evil because that would mean 100% privation and therefore nonexistence.)
Sorry, I didn't realise from the OP that you were referring to the problem of evil.
Interestingly, when it comes to the problem of evil Aquinas takes his cues from Augustine and he sums up the position quickly in the link about the five ways as follows: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil."
( ... )
Comments 26
Reply
Reply
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 ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Yeah so, to sum up Aquinas' whole argument very quickly through careful editing (he actually has FIVE arguments or "ways", though these arguments are supposed to back each other up rather than being five separate attempts at a proof) it goes as follows:
The first way is the argument from motion.
Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another....
If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover....
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
To sum up you either have a beginning of the universe or an infinite regress. Aquinas rules out the infinite regress (and interestingly enough he would consider himself to be supported by occam's razor).
The second way is the nature of the efficient cause.There is no case known (neither is it, ( ... )
Reply
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things.
There is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost Being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in Being...
This whole "Being" thing strikes me as bit too much of an arbitrary wild card tbh.
Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
Yeaaaah... Not buying the "maximum heat required for all hot things" argument. Are the sparks from two pieces of flint really at "maximum heat"? I don't think so...
The fifth way is the governance of the world.We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way ( ... )
Reply
Reply
As the philosopher of religion Peter Vardy puts it, a good deckchair and a good grape are not the same thing. A good deckchair does not need to taste nice, but it must not flatten when you sit on it. Not so, however, when we are dealing with a good grape...
The problem is that we are not in a position to judge what makes a God good (apparently) and since God is supposedly perfect that means that God suffers from no privation. (On these grounds the devil cannot be 100% evil because that would mean 100% privation and therefore nonexistence.)
Sorry, I didn't realise from the OP that you were referring to the problem of evil.
Interestingly, when it comes to the problem of evil Aquinas takes his cues from Augustine and he sums up the position quickly in the link about the five ways as follows:
As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment