A rchive Date
[ 22-01-2017 ]
Category
[ Philosophy ]
sub-Categoy
[ Greek ]
|
[Aristotle: A Perspective on Dialectics
Introduction
Arguments come in many different forms, such as :
Cosmological: These take a number of different forms, though the most common deal with two notions:
1 - That the existence of the universe requires a god as an explanation (First Cause ). This form is also called the Etiological Argument
2 - Or, that order in the universe requires a god as an explanation.
Ontological Arguments: These argue for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world - e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. It relies purely upon logical considerations and not at all upon empirical evidence.
The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D.:
In his Proslogion, "St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being - namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists - can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived - i.e., God - exists" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
).
The first objection is one which has been brought up in other places, like the Ontological Argument: there is no good, factual basis to assume that belief in a god is indeed innate and instinctive. It cannot be innate in the sense that it is present in our minds at birth, since some people manage never to believe in any gods. And it cannot be innate in the sense that it is a belief that we are predisposed to acquire, because there is no reason to think that all children will automatically acquire it without specific instruction or indoctrination.
The second objection is to the idea that there is any necessary logical connection between the widespread existence of a belief and in the existence of the object of that belief. Just because trillions of people believe a thing doesn't make it true - this is the logical fallacy
The Argument from Common Consent starts with the premise that there exists not an innate belief in some sort of god, but instead an innate yearning for a god. Since there cannot be an innate desire for something without there also being an object for that desire, then the object of this desire - God - must exist.
Thus we see that the Argument from Common Consent fails to make the existence of a god more likely or the belief in a god more reasonable. The premises upon which it relies are questionable at best and often incorrect. The conclusions it attempts to draw do not follow necessarily from the premises, even if they were true.
A simple example would be the question of whether the dog wags the tail or the tail wags the dog? If the tail does not wag the dog, then why not? Because the dog has no tail or the dog dog does not exist? Have we now established that there is a dog to begin with?
Then we have:
Teleology and Teleological Explanations: Explanation by design, or teleology, is "the use of design, purpose, or utility as an explanation of any natural phenomenon". An object or a behavior is said to be teleological when it gives evidence of design or appears to be directed toward certain ends. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1966).
Sometimes, this is referred to as the Argument from Design. The idea being that it can logically be argued for the existence of "design" in the universe and to the logical conclusion that the design requires a "designer" (God, for example). It is incorrect, however, to simply accept the assumption that there exists "design" in the universe; just as much as it is foolhardy to argue that there is such design does not exist. Teleology, therefore, is that branch of philosophy which is concerned with ends purpose in natural phenomena.
Teleological arguments set out to prove the existence of God through reference to the existence of purpose in nature. Christian Faith is another example of such an argument with teological underpinnings.
As we have seen so far in this class, as far back as the ancient Greek philosophers and poets it is the paradox, as I perceive it to be is this: Is it the question which drives us to seek the answer to what is, apparently, an unanswerable question? Or, is it merely a desire to seek out whether such a question or answer exists?
When the ancient Greeks applied their minds to the problem they managed to come up with some memorable and remarkable questions and answers that, to this day and age, have withstood the ceaseless passage of time. Men, such as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates - philosophers all, whose thoughts examined the process of thinking still greatly exert influence on 21st century thinking and thinkers. They made philosophy it into an art; since then we have managed to turn its rationality to man's advantage which has propelled us into the 21st century - still without an answer to the original question.
Men such as Einstein may have proclaimed or enunciated E=MC2 in a certain or particular logical and mathematical manner. Worthy of being lauded scientific genius. However, to most men, the common man - the common understanding remains that everything is relative. And what's simple is most often, true.
That is what men like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates clearly understood and sought to inculcate among the influential people of their time and age. ]
|