DAY 34 - Readings in Metaphysics

In preparation for our next marked assignment please have a good look at the assignment:
Readings in Metaphysics.
Readings in Metaphysics Marking Scheme.

On Thursday we will have our first seminar and then after the Easter Break we'll start in on Epistemology.

DAY 21 - What is the Meaning of Your Life?

"Everything has been figured out, except how to live."

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 - 1980)

Fork in the Road

What is the meaning of life? Do you have an answer? Is there one? Or is the answer what Robert Frost hints at in his poem "The Road Not Taken"? Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same, And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back. I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I- I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. - Robert Frost, From Mountain Interval, 1920. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923.

1. Weltanschauung

Before answering (or attempting to answer) the question 'what is the meaning of life?', first you must understand the world as you see it. As a precursor to the concept take this short quiz to determine your worldview?

No doubt you have been in a conversation where someone has asked for your perspective on matters. Have you ever wondered why? Implied within the invitation is a philosophical concept called weltanschauung. This is a German term that translates to 'worldview'. In other words, you were asked for your opinion not only because you are seen to have the (or an) answer, but also because they consciously or subconsciously know that no two people will provide the exact same answer (assuming the answer is explored).

Your worldview consists of your combined experiences, genetics and demography. In short, it is a built in, ever expanding, filter through which you view, assess and interact with the world. Some philosophers have suggested that how you interpret and interact with the world becomes a schema (a set of actions that are almost unconscious). Perhaps this is why people become 'set in their ways' as they get older...

Did you know?

Noam Chomsky

Famed linguist, social activist and philosopher Noam Chomsky developed thePropaganda Model whereby the media itself was said to have a weltanschauung. Basically, the media filters stories to the public based upon: Ownership of the medium The medium's funding sources Sourcing (where information comes from) Flak (negative feedback) Norms (societal acceptance) Do you believe these filters function in modern media? If so, what impact would that have on your worldview?

 If you want to learn more about the media and its role in your world today, click here to watch an online "Frontline" episode entitled "News War". This link provides a fascinating study of the political, cultural, legal, and economic forces challenging the news media today and how the press has reacted in turn. Through interviews with key figures in print, broadcast and electronic media over 40 years, the recent history of American journalism is traced to illustrate the challenges and influences facing the press in its delivery of the news.

 Required Reading
Click here to read a story by Antoine De Saint-exupery titled The Little Prince. One the world's 50 top selling books, this cleverly crafted philosophical exploration disguises itself as a children's story. Yet, contained within, is a thorough and engaging examination of the worldview concept. After reading this story, take the time to consider these questions: What does this story tell us about worldview? Whose worldview is correct? Can such a question be asked?

2. To Ask or Not to Ask?

That is the question...at least for philosophers. The debate as to whether the question 'what is the meaning of life' is a worthwhile one has raged for centuries. For many philosophers, the question is pointless since it either a) has no discernable answer or b) is entirely subjective and thus one person's view does not provide the answer to another person's experience. Likewise, often (but not always) this question relates back to God's existence that obviously carries with it a host of other concerns. Yet, the question continues to be asked... which in itself is not surprising. After all, think back to your childhood; wasn't one of the first and foremost questions you asked 'why'? Even Socrates demonstrated to us "the unexamined life is not worth living." Needless to say, philosophically valid or not, the question 'what is the meaning of life?' will continue to be considered.

3. Humanism

One attempt to answer the meaning of life is fairly recent in world history (1933) titled, 'Humanism'. Paraphrased, humanism's goals mirror George Eliot's worldview: "What do we live for, if it is not to make life less difficult for each other?"

The guiding philosophy of humanism to answer the question, 'What is the meaning of life?' is a code of sorts that invites, but does not proscribe, people to live a life of meaning. In other words, you are responsible for deciding the most appropriate answer to that question.

Click here to read a copy of the Humanist Manifesto III. Do you agree or disagree with the manifesto's message? Why?

4. Does It Matter?

Nihilists argue that there is no point to life. So too did Shakespeare's Macbeth when he lamented:

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Scene V.

Yet as depressing as that may sound, some philosophers have argued that the absence of a meaning or purpose to life permits people to live freely and unfettered. Without the pressure to adhere to a possibly unachievable ultimatum, people are able to create their lives' purposes rather than adhere to them.

What do you think?

 Is God dead?

Nietzsche stated that "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

Friedrich Nietzsche, from "Parable of the Madman", The Gay Science (1882, 1887); Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.

Conduct a thought experiment using Nietzsche's quote as a starting point. Do you agree with what he says? What would the world Nietzsche introduces be like? Why?

 Resources

1. Official Noam Chomsky site - Audio and Video
2. Humanist Association of Canada

DAY 20 - Free Will?

"Free will. It's like butterfly wings: once touched, they never get off the ground."

John Milton (1608 - 1674)

Did you know that a butterfly in Ontario can cause a hurricane in Japan? It's true! Chaos theory, part of which is sometimes called the Butterfly Effect, states that an action can have an effect that is almost impossible to predict. Think of it this way: when you throw a pebble in a pond, do you ever pause to calculate what could happen to the fish?

 Thought ExperimentImagine you are sitting in a plane, flying over Alberta. Being bored encourages you to rummage around through your seat's magazines when, surprisingly, you pick up a small magazine called, "Your Life" featuring a picture of you, reading the magazine, on the front cover!
Intrigued, you begin flipping through the magazine, shocked to discover it describes every aspect of your life. Curious (and a little worried) you flip to the back only to discover a blank page with only the little letters RIP in the centre. Skipping back a page you nervously read about how your "life ended tragically after the plane you were flying on crashed just over Alberta..."!
Unable to read any more you propel yourself out of your seat and crash into the cockpit screaming that "I'm going to die! Land the plane!" Unfortunately, the startled pilot sends the plane spiralling out of control...
As the debris drifts down, a solitary page remains: "...after you startled the pilot by rushing into the cockpit."
What does this situation tell you about free will? What would it mean if such an event occurred?

1. Free Will?

Are your choices your own?

This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. After all, the answer stretches as far as the meaning of life, but also impacts everything from friendships to criminals. Some interesting questions to be pondered include;
Can society justify putting prisoners in jail if they had no choice but to commit the crime? Do your accomplishments matter if they were predetermined?

 Do your accomplishments matter if they were predetermined?

This issue is a great example for why semantics (the meaning of words) matter in philosophy. After all, sometimes you might feel as though you have no choice, but this isn't really true is it? After all, you could choose to do nothing or to resist. The outcome might not be what you want it to be, but you still technically have a choice (but not necessarily a chance). A choice, then, is something you decide to do, but not necessarily something you do accomplish.

Free will can be defined as the ability to make conscious choices that determine one's future. Assuming such things exist, free will permits you to have control over the physical, mental and spiritual realms. In reference to Descartes declaration 'cogito ergo sum', you are an independent thinking thing. After all, if the thoughts were not your own, how could you exist? As an analogy, consider free will as a road  with many paths that you are free to walk.

2. Determinism

Determinism is the opposite of free will. As the name suggests, your choices are already determined and there is nothing you can do to change the past, present or future. As an analogy, consider determinism as being a cog in a giant machine. However, determinism's cause is still up for debate. The three main 'choices' are:

Type	Definition	Problem
Causal	Cause and effect relationships invariably lead from one to the other.	Where does the first cause come from?
Theological	God determines the future, whether through design or omniscience.	Does God not have the power to allow free will? And if so, how can things occur that God cannot know?
Biological	Everything living creatures do is a direct result of their genetic programming.	Humans are now able to change their genetic structure.

Laplace's Demon

In his 1814 work Essai, Philosopher Pierre-Simon Laplace proposed a Newtonian-based thought experiment whereby a demon could know the location and speed of every atom in the universe (something quantum physics suggests is impossible). Using cause and effect, this demon would know everything, thereby suggesting that free will is an illusion born from complexity; that is, you believe in free will because the universe is so complex, that it is impossible to perceive it in its entirety.

To quote Laplace: "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes." The Thwarting of Laplace's Demon: Arguments Against the Mechanistic World-View by Richard Green. Vhps Distribution, 1995.

Compatibilism

William James

Compatibilism attempts to blend free will and determinism. Basically, you get a small amount of options in an essentially determined universe. As an analogy, image your parents decide you are going out for ice cream, but you get to pick your flavour. Another, more eastern philosophical, take on compatibilism is that you are a part of the universe, trying to understand itself.

Although many famous philosophers including Hobbes and Hume have argued for compatibilism, William James' The Dilemma of Determinism offers a succinct spin on the debate. James believed that hope and optimism were reasons to believe in compatibilism, since determinism's trappings were bleak and pessimistic. What do you think?  Click here to read the essay in its entirety.

 Did You Know?Worried that free will doesn't exist? Well, perhaps it's quantum physicists to the rescue! Werner Karl Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle describes how it is impossible to measure an electron's position and velocity at the same time. The observer effect, too, argues that the very act of trying to observe something so small changes the outcome; so, you can either know an electron's velocity or its position, but not both since observing changes one or the other.
Another chance for free will comes from the nature of space. Although things appear pretty stable up here in the macroscopic world, once you delve down into the quantum realm, things start to get, well, weird. Without turning this into a mathematics course, quantum physicists theorize that even the rules of cause and effect don't always apply! (In other words, Laplace's Demon would have a difficult time seeing the future since the act of seeing would change the future itself!)
If you are interested in learning more, click here to watch an online episode of Nova's The Elegant Universe.  This is in 3 parts - the Nova Website only makes available one of the three parts at any given time - currently only Episode 3 is available - watch it, it's extremely interesting. Be forewarned though, this might force you to question your basic understanding of the universe (you don't have to watch it all, or watch it all at once).

 

 Resources

1. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Entry on Free Will
2. The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website

DAY 17, March 4 - More Theories on the Supreme Being

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."

Woody Allen (1935 -present)

Michelangelo's "Genesis" in the Sistine Chapel

Perhaps one of Christianity's most famous depictions, Michelangelo's Genesis is not devoid of philosophical intent. Notice the fingers between God and Adam. Though close, they aren't touching. Is God destined to be just out of reach? Or is it the opposite?

 After defining God, believing in God has been another philosophical hurdle for people in various cultures throughout history. Take a moment to play this game. Given its philosophical (not religious) perspective, you might be surprised by the results! Click here to go to the Battle Ground God game.

Arguments for God's Existence

In the last activity you leaned about two key arguments for God's existence. In this activity, you will examine the remaining two:

Argument	Philosopher(s)
Cosmological	Plato and Aristotle
Ontological	St. Anselm
Teleological	Thomas Aquinas
Mind-Body	Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz

3. Teleological

Can you conceive of God as a watchmaker?

If you can, then you already understand the essence of the teleological argument. That is, imagine this scenario:

Innards of a watch

You are walking in a pristine forest when suddenly you come across an elegant pocket watch. Given its detail and intricacy, would you ever doubt that someone made it? The Watchmaker argument follows the same reasoning: the universe is so complex that it requires a 'maker' in order to make sense of its own existence. In other words, there is no way that the universe could have been created by chance and not design. Or, in G.K. Chesterton's paradoxical prose, "So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot." (Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton. Kessinger Publishing, 2004. p 41)

Carlo Crivelli's "The Demindoff Altarpiece featuring St. Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas explained the idea in his Summa Theologica: "The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."(The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920)

Scientific View

The teleological argument also receives some scientific support. Systematically, scientists have found that the universe is more complex than they initial hypothesized. Whether this complexity comes from dark energy or singularities, the fact remains that no scientific theory yet has an explanation for how the universe came into existence. In fact, due to the way the universe formed, no matter how powerful our telescopes become, humans will never be able to peer into the universe's first moments. Indeed, even Einstein argued for God's existence.

A star's inner shell

Likewise, you yourself are a part of the universe - star stuff. That is, the atoms in your body were created (could only be created) and released upon the supernova exposition of dying stars. In a very literal sense, these explosions seeded the universe with the atoms necessary for life to develop and planets to form. In other words, every part of your body originated in a star. Talk about recycling!

Anthropic Principle

A six-story card castle made from playing cards

Almost daily you hear how fragile our world's environment is. But have you ever wondered about the universe's stability? The anthropic principle argues that humanity's existence is so unlikely, that our being here suggests a creator. Like a deck of cards, if one single piece is removed or changed, the entire structure falls to pieces. For example, conditions for something as fundamental as the atom depend on a balance of forces to within one in 1018. And without atoms, no physical matter could exist.

Counterarguments

Q.  As a critical thinker, can you spot any problems with Aquinas and/or others' arguments stated above in explaining the existence of God?

A.  After pondering the question, click here for some examples that help answer the question.

4. Mind-Body Problem

Descartes' illustration of the mind body problem

As you learned previously, philosophers disagree as to how and whether the mind and body interact. After all, when you think about it, how can they (unless you believed in idealism or materialism) since the images you "see" are mere representations decoded and sent electrically from your eyes to your brain? And what about insects and animals perceiving the same thing differently? Since this perceptual filter always exists, how is it ever possible to REALLY know something for certain?

Well, one answer is God. Basically, God acts as a conduit through which the mind and body can interact... the invisible glue that bonds them together. Since the mind and body seem to exist, it only makes sense (within this argument) that something must be causing the two to interact. This argument is extensively explored by Leibniz in his "Monadology" as highlighted in the previous Activity - Is There a God Part 1.

Another variation came from Spinoza, who argued that everything is God (he called it Substance), and so there is no mind-body problem since they are both aspects of the same thing. This, in turn, means that everything from you to the glaciers are simply aspects (or attributes) of God.

Counterarguments

Q.  As a critical thinker, can you spot any problems with Leibniz and Spinoza's arguments in explaining the existence of God?

A.  After pondering the question, click here for some examples that help answer the question.

 

Some Helpful Resources

1. Teleological Argument
2. Anthropic Principle
3. Condensed Monadology

DAY 16 - The Inside Ride

For the three people who were not participating in the Inside Ride this morning this was a work period.

DAY 15 - Is there a God?  The Idea of the Supreme Being

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Clouds

This image is the first image connected to the Wikipedia online encyclopedia's entry dealing with God and has been identified as one of the finest images in Wikipedia. Why? What is it about light streaming from the clouds (heavens) that invokes images of a Creator? Is it the promise of enlightenment? Or is it the mystery hidden behind the clouds? For philosophers, the goal is to ascend to the clouds, ask the questions and examine the many different answers.

Defining God

What does the word 'God' mean? Obviously, it means different things to different people. As you discovered in the last activity, Eastern philosophers generally see God as a representation of ultimate reality whereas Western philosophers use a more human-like being.

As you know, definitions are the foundation upon which philosophers seek wisdom. A faulty foundation leads to cracks in the argument, which can, in turn, collapse the entire structure.

For philosophers, defining God is almost as difficult as determining whether God exists. However, like a corporate executive needing to know about golf to get ahead, so too do philosophers seem to need to expound about God to be taken seriously. So why not try for yourself? Click here to go to the Do-It-Yourself Deity generator.

Arguments for God's Existence

There are numerous arguments for God's existence. However, the key arguments you will be studying are:

Argument	Philosopher(s)
Cosmological	Plato and Aristotle
Ontological	St. Anselm
Teleological	Thomas Aquinas
Mind-Body	Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz

1. Cosmological

Plato and Aristotle in Raphael's "School of Athens"

More so than their peers, Plato and Aristotle sought the answers to the Big Questions. Though they often disagreed, one principle philosophy they agreed on was that existence and the universe required a First Cause or Prime Mover. In short, here is the cosmological argument: 1. Every finite and dependent being has a cause. 2. Nothing finite and dependent can cause itself. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.

In essence, the cosmological argument can be boiled down to cause and effect. Cause and effect is where something earlier causes an effect after, which, in turn, causes another effect, and so on. Causes necessarily must come before effects, or else you are caught in a paradox (more on this later). A common example used is playing pool: the cue ball (cause) hits the eight ball (effect) on a pool table (the universe).

Think of it this way: the universe is a DVD movie and, growing bored, you choose to watch it in reverse. Doing this, eventually you will get to the very beginning. But the first cause for the movie isn't the first scene - it is your decision to put the movie in the player! Aristotle and Plato, then, performed a thought experiment where they mentally rewound the universe to the point where they believed that the only logical answer for the first cause was God.

Did you know?

Have you doubted whether thought experiments are useful? Well, you may be interested to know that Plato and Aristotle's First Cause argument accurately illustrates and parallels the scientific Big Bang Theory. Not bad for two philosophers living over 2000 years before telescopes, satellites and computers!
The Big Bang theory states that the universe began as a singularity (a single, infinitely small, infinitely dense point). At the time, the singularity was the ultimate constituent of reality. In fact, it was the only constituent! Not only did the singularity contain all the matter and energy ever to be in the universe, but also it 'contained' both space and time. The singularity didn't explode into space and time. It created space and time! The question, then, becomes: where did the singularity come from?
Interestingly, the Eastern philosophies you learned about could call this singularity 'Nirvana'. After all, isn't it the case that after a long journey, all most people want to do is go home?

 Resources

1. Big Bang: It Sure Was Big!
2. Big Bang: A Virtual Tour
3. NOVA Special: Runaway Universe

Counterargument

Q.  As a critical thinker, can you spot any problems with Plato and Aristotle's argument in explaining the existence of God?

A.  After pondering the question, click here for some examples that help answer the question.

2. Ontological

"Come on now little man, get away from your worldly occupations for a while, escape from your tumultuous thoughts. Lay aside your burdensome cares and put off your laborious exertions. Give yourself over to God for a little while, and rest for a while in Him. Enter into the cell of your mind, shut out everything except God and whatever helps you to seek Him once the door is shut. Speak now, my heart, and say to God, 'I seek your face; your face, Lord, I seek.'"

St. Anselm (1033 - 1109)

Another argument for God's existence is the ontological. This argument is favoured by rationalists because it requires no external experimentation or proof - only reasoning. Although it has changed, the original idea put forth by St. Anselm argues that God exists because you can imagine that God exists. Sound confusing?

It isn't really if you can first admit that you aren't perfect (that may be hard but give it a try...).

 Okay, imagine what attributes God must have (don't worry about whether God exists or not, just give it the properties God would need.) So, grab a sheet of paper and make out a list of God's Top Five Qualities.

St. Anselm of Canterbury

Finished? It is a safe bet that perfection is probably near the top of your list. Well, St. Anselm argued that the very fact that you can imagine perfection proves God's existence? How? He used this rationalist argument:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

(Taken from the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy)

Below is an excerpt from Anselm's Proslogion:

CHAPTER II
That God Truly Exists 
Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God'" (Ps. 13:1, 52:1)? But certainly that same fool, having heard what I just said, "something greater than which cannot be thought," understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that thing exists. 

For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality.

CHAPTER III
That God Cannot be Thought Not to Exist 
In fact, it so undoubtedly exists that it cannot be thought of as not existing. For one can think there exists something that cannot be thought of as not existing, and that would be greater than something which can be thought of as not existing. For if that greater than which cannot be thought can be thought of as not existing, then that greater than which cannot be thought is not that greater than which cannot be thought, which does not make sense. Thus that than which nothing can be thought so undoubtedly exists that it cannot even be thought of as not existing. 

And you, Lord God, are this being. You exist so undoubtedly, my Lord God, that you cannot even 
be thought of as not existing. And deservedly, for if some mind could think of something greater 
than you, that creature would rise above the creator and could pass judgment on the creator, which is absurd. And indeed whatever exists except you alone can be thought of as not existing. You alone of all things most truly exists and thus enjoy existence to the fullest degree of all things, because nothing else exists so undoubtedly, and thus everything else enjoys being in a lesser degree. Why therefore did the fool say in his heart "there is no God," since it is so evident to any rational mind that you above all things exist? Why indeed, except precisely because he is stupid and foolish?

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copypermitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.

Not convinced? Well, lots of other people weren't either (and more on that later). However, Descartes (remember him? "I think, therefore I am") was. He made the argument more accessible in his Third Meditation contained within his Meditations on First Philosophy. To summarize, God exists for Descartes because if God didn't his entire conception of reality might be false, and God would not do that to someone. If you too have difficulty with this argument, don't worry. Hume felt the same way (more on him below).

 Required Reading
Click here to read Descartes "Third Meditation: Of God: that He Exists". After reading the meditation, reconstruct Descartes' point-by-point argument proving that God exists using no more than 7 points.

Godly House Party Manners

It's rude to go to someone's house party without bringing something (often, but not always, potato salad - that would be an example of a sufficient but not a necessary choice...). So too do philosophers argue that God must have come to the universal picnic with some specific qualities.

The ontological argument suggests four principal qualities that God must necessarily have in order to be God:

1. All Powerful (Omnipotent)
2. All Seeing/Knowing (Omniscient)
3. All Good
4. Existence

Counterarguments

Q.  As a critical thinker, can you spot any problems with St. Anselm, Descartes and/or others' arguments stated above in explaining the existence of God?

A.  After pondering the question, click here for some examples that help answer the question.

Look back at your list of God's Top Five Qualities. Are they similar or different? If similar, why do you think that is? If different, how would you defend your choices?

 

A Helpful Resource

1. Outline of Descartes' Meditations Arguments

DAY 13 & 14- Dolphins as Persons?

Work periods for your Dolphin article assignment - please see the previous blog post for the assignment.

DAY 12 - The Idea of Personhood

Your first marked work is the Metaphysics Critical Thinking Question - here's the Marking Sheet for it as well.

This was a work period for this assignment.