|
Post by bobarian on Apr 5, 2005 23:31:50 GMT -5
Satori - The evil genius isn't an evil genius small g, he's an evil genius big G. So, what Descartes is saying, if the evil Genius created everything (including the world) how could an evil Genius create the idea of absolute good?
I think the philosophical reasoning is sound, really. But like with all philosophy, you have to agree with the premises first. That is where I depart from Descartes - I don't really think you have to doubt everything to find truth. Nor do I believe that he can discard every single idea by simply imagining another possibility.
About the Buddhism -
Well, I won't argue, merely counter-assert. I think that the true perception of reality is found not through denying one's craving, but in finding the end of that craving -> God. To quote Lewis (my paraphrase, heh heh): if I have a desire for which there is nothing to satisfy in this world, then I can only conclude that I was made for another world.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Apr 6, 2005 1:47:42 GMT -5
Satori - The evil genius isn't an evil genius small g, he's an evil genius big G. So, what Descartes is saying, if the evil Genius created everything (including the world) how could an evil Genius create the idea of absolute good? Perhaps in order to induce craving and hence suffering? A trick; something that doesn't really exist, but is created to fool us into yearning after perfect good. What use is evil without good to compare it too (as a relativist might say)? Just philosophising here Bob. That's exactly true. Buddhism doesn't deny craving - quite the opposite in fact, it accepts it as being part and parcel of life - what it attempts to do is to remove it by opening ones eyes to the underlying truth of it (i.e. that there's nothing really worth craving). Yes, that can work, assuming such a belief doesn't induce cravings of its own. God isn't necessary in order to reduce craving, but people sometimes find it helps in that quest. Or, perhaps, that the current world is not being seen clearly (more speculative philosophy!).
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Apr 6, 2005 4:23:53 GMT -5
Bobarian > Descartes idea boils down to saying nothing more than "for something to pop into my mind means that it must exist beforehand". You'll have to pardon me for viewing this as a non-sequiter. No, Descartes did not say that.... ...the idea of perfection could not come from any source other than God, because perfection is something other than what is found in the material world, or any imperfect thing (such as an evil genius.) Thus, if he has the idea of perfection (or infinity), it could only be a God-given concept, because there is no other way it could be conceived. I'm not seeing how I've got this wrong. I say that the human mind is perfectly capable of imagining something that does not exist (I'm sure you can think of a few things yourself). Neither can I see why the concept of perfection deserves to be excluded from the infinite list of things that might be imagined. The human imagination is credited with being the vital evolutionary step which propelled us towards becoming a technologically adept species. The ability to model "what might be" in our minds gives us the power to plan and take action to achieve an obective. It is nonsense to suggest that we could not conceive of perfection if perfection was non-existent anywhere. As it happens electrons are all perfect - they are completely indistinguishable from each other. Indeed some have pondered whether they might all be the same one I spoke of the development of imagination as being an important evolutionary step for our species. The often quoted example is how primitive man might have wanted to cross a river - then sees a tree up ahead. In his imagination he fells the tree across the river and can 'see' that it would provide a bridge. This process has been identified as playing an important role in our development (although it has also been shown not to be restricted to humans alone). Evolution does not produce the idea of perfection. In fact, the idea of perfection is fundamentally opposed to a naturalistic evolution, because if we did merely evolve from matter, then we would have to accept matter as all that there is.... ...Nothing in evolution suggests an ideal - in fact, it is an entirely unrealistic prospect evolutionally and thus those who believe in it should have been killed off by now. Your answer that "evolution does not produce the idea of perfection" is still highly mysterious. I have mentioned how evolution has given animals imagination and how imagination is capable of letting animals envision things that don't necessarily exist. I think your slightly caustic, and disappointing remark in conclusion to the last quote reveals your disdain for the premise of evolution which, while being relevant to my argument, is not essential.
|
|