Descartes Reading Guide

 

30. "Thus it is no less contradictory to think of God... lacking existence... than it is to think of a mountain without a valley." (90) Why not? Be specific.

 

Back to Descartes Reading Guide

 

Back to Philosophy 101 Home

 

Next Question

Enter your response to the above question, or to a previous response, in the form below, or use this email link. I will post your response on the right, and comment if I think I can be helpful. When emailing, instead of using the form, please indicate the question number. When using the form below, if you neglect to enter your name or email, I won't know who you are.

Class Responses and Instructor Comments

 

>From anna grier:

Descartes suggest by that statement, that the mere concept of God implies Gods existence if his intellect is on the level of intelligent understanding. His thoughts allow him to think of a necessary being,which is God,and that he exists.

 

>rm says: I'm not sure what 'if his intellect is on the level of intelligent understanding' means. Here, I'm asking you to clearly explain Descartes' version of the ontological argument. You've got the general point, but this needs the specifics of the argument.

>From W Y Ng:

Without the existence of God, the mountain is without the existence of a valley on the bottom. It goes "naturally"? This question has to do with God's existence compared to existence of other things?

 

>rm says: Not quite. The mountain/valley example is a metaphor, attempting to provide an illustration of what it means to be an essence. The essence of a mountain is such that it has to contain a valley. The essnce of God is to exist (in part).

>From anna grier:

Intelligence being on the level of understanding means that a person clearly understands what is being said or presented to him.(I first heard this statement on CNN 5-6 yrs ago.I gave it my meaning) Descartes and everything else depends on the existence of God.

 

>rm says: So, if he understands it, then it's true? Can't I understand a false statement? For example, I can understand the statement, 'Stop signs are blue' even if I also understand that it's false. On the other hand, one might say of the ontological argument that it says that understanding the concept of God forces us to understand that God exists. Still, that's just an outline of the argument, and not the details.

 

Write your comments here:

Your Name:

Your email: