This week we discussed several Ontological arguments. One argued that the meaning of God makes God an absolutely necessary being. If we know the definition, God must exist. For example, if we know what a triangle is, we must know that a 4-sided triangle cannot exist. I believe this argument is complete bullcrap. I can comfortably say that I know what the common definition of God is: an omniscient, benevolent ruler and creator. However, being so stubbornly atheist, I can outright deny that there is a God. The comparison to a triangle is also stupid; I know what the idea of a triangle is, but I can also see triangles, work with triangles, and draw them too. Can’t say the same about God, no matter how many years of reflection and stuff I’ve had.
In this class we will ask ‘what is philosophy?’ in the hopes of defending the importance of this discipline for the individual and society. In this endeavor we shall trek through the history of philosophy while unpacking some of the major issues and problems in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic and politics. Furthermore we will address the perennial problems of the good life, personal identity, authenticity and social responsibility.
Monday, February 21, 2011
ontological
Labels:
rachel enav,
stupid
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment