1 / 15

LECTURE 15

LECTURE 15. DESCARTES’ VERSION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. A METAPHYSICAL QUESTION. Q: “WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL, RATHER THAN NOTHING?” (1) EMPTY SPACE IS SOMETHING (NOT NOTHING) (2) A QUANTUM VACUUM IS SOMETHING (NOT NOTHING). DESCARTES’ VERSION.

shandi
Télécharger la présentation

LECTURE 15

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LECTURE 15 DESCARTES’ VERSION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

  2. A METAPHYSICAL QUESTION Q: “WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL, RATHER THAN NOTHING?” (1) EMPTY SPACE IS SOMETHING (NOT NOTHING) (2) A QUANTUM VACUUM IS SOMETHING (NOT NOTHING).

  3. DESCARTES’ VERSION (D1) A PERFECT BEING HAS ALL PERFECTIONS. (D2) EXISTENCE IS A PERFECTION. • (C1) A PERFECT BEING HAS EXISTENCE. • (C2) A PERFECT BEING EXISTS HERE IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: Q: “WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL?” A: “THE STATEMENT THAT THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL IS CONTRADICTORY. THERE HAS TO BE A PERFECT BEING. HERE IS A PROOF FROM NECESSARILY TRUE PREMISES.”

  4. THIS VERSION EITHER BEGS THE QUESTION OR IS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE OF AN EQUIVOCATION BEGGING THE QUESTION: AN ARGUMENT (OR ARGUER) COMMITS THE FALLACY OF BEGGING THE QUESTION IF ONE OF THE PREMISES OF THE ARGUMENT COULD NOT BE KNOWN (OR REASONABLY BELIEVED) WITHOUT ALREADY KNOWING (OR BELIEVING) THE CONCLUSION.

  5. HERE IS A STANDARD EXAMPLE OF BEGGING THE QUESTION (B1) THE BIBLE SAYS THAT GOD EXISTS. (B2) EVERYTHING THAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS TRUE. • (B3) GOD EXISTS.

  6. BUT WHY BELIEVE PREMISE (2)? ARGUMENT JUSTIFYING PREMISE (2): (B0) GOD (EXISTS AND) IS ALL KNOWING AND ALL GOOD. (B1*) THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.  (B2) EVERYTHING THAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS TRUE.

  7. THESE ARGUMENTS ARE BOTH DEDUCTIVELY VALID! THE PROBLEM WITH THE OVERALL ARGUMENT (CONSISTING OF THE TWO ARGUMENTS TOGETHER) IS NOT THAT THEY ARE NOT VALID. THEY ARE BOTH VALID. THE PROBLEM IS EPISTEMIC. THE ARGUMENTS TOGETHER ARE WORTHLESS. IF YOU ARE ALREADY JUSTIFIED IN BELIEVING (B0), THEN THE REST OF THE ARGUMENT IS SUPERFLUOUS. IF YOU ARE NOT, THEN THE ARGUMENT OVERALL IS NOT COGENT.

  8. BUT HOW, EXACTLY, DOES DESCARTES’ ARGUMENT COMMIT THIS FALLACY? THE LOGICAL SITUATION IS A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED. THE ARGUMENT, AS STATED, COMMITS ANOTHER FALLACY: THE FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION. WHEN WE REMOVE THE EQUIVOCATION, WE GET TWO ARGUMENTS: ONE OF THEM BEGS THE QUESTION AND THE OTHER DOESN’T HAVE THE CONCLUSION CLAIMED.

  9. EQUIVOCATION AN ARGUMENT (OR ARGUER) COMMITS THE FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION IF THERE IS A SINGLE TERM OR PHRASE THAT IS USED WITH TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS SO THAT THE ARGUMENT IS INVALID [AND IF WE ASSSIGN THE SAME MEANING FOR BOTH TERMS THE RESULTING ARGUMENTS HAVE OTHER DEFECTS].

  10. EXAMPLE OF EQUIVOCATION • THE END OF A THING IS ITS AIM. (2) DEATH IS THE END OF LIFE.  (3) DEATH IS THE AIM OF LIFE. AT ONE OCCURRENCE, “END” MEANS THE PURPOSE OF SOMETHING. AT THE OTHER, “END” MEANS THE TERMINATION OF SOMETHING. WITH THESE MEANINGS, IT IS INVALID.

  11. DESCARTE’S VERSION (D1) A PERFECT BEING HAS ALL PERFECTIONS. (D2) EXISTENCE IS A PERFECTION. • (C1) A PERFECT BEING HAS EXISTENCE. • (C2) A PERFECT BEING EXISTS SOMETIMES “A SO-AND-SO” MEANS “THERE IS (EXISTS) A SO-AND-SO AND IT….” SOMETIMES “A SO-AND-SO” MEANS “ALL THE SO-AND-SO’s ARE…(OR ‘EVERY SO-AND-SO’) IS …”

  12. “A PERFECT BEING” COMPARE: (1) A SCOUT IS LOYAL. (2) A HOMELESS PERSON ASKED ME FOR MONEY. THE PHRASE “A SCOUT” DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THERE IS A SCOUT (LOYAL OR NOT). THE PHRASE “A HOMELESS PERSON” IMPLIES THAT THERE EXISTS A HOMELESS PERSON (HE ASKED ME FOR MONEY)

  13. VERSION ONE: EQUIVOCATION REMOVED (D1’) ALL THE PERFECT BEINGS (THAT THERE ARE, IF ANY) HAVE ALL PERFECTIONS. (D2) EXISTENCE IS A PERFECTION. (C1’) ALL THE PERFECT BEINGS (THAT THERE ARE) HAVE EXISTENCE. (C2’) ALL THE PERFECT BEINGS (THAT THERE ARE) EXIST. THE CONCLUSION IS NOT WHAT IS WANTED.

  14. VERSION TWO: EQUIVOCATION REMOVED. (D1”) THERE IS (EXISTS) A PERFECT BEING HAVING ALL PERFECTIONS. (D2) EXISTENCE IS A PERFECTION. (C1”) THERE IS (EXISTS) A PERFECT BEING THAT HAS EXISTENCE. (C2”) THERE IS (EXISTS) A PERFECT BEING THAT EXISTS. THIS VERSION BEGS THE QUESTION.

  15. ALAS, DESCARTES’ ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT THERE IS A NECESSARY BEING FAILED BUT THERE IS A MODERN ‘VERSION’ OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT THAT COMMITS NO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND WHICH MAY EVEN BE COGENT (!).

More Related