Great Works of Western Philosophy - Essay Example

Great Works of Western Philosophy Proofs of the existence of God There has been many decades of debate and argumentation with regard to an appropriate and unanimous explanation the proof of the existence of a supreme entity known as God. Propositions have been both in support as well as against the existence of God, and have included practitioners from various genre such as science, philosophy, theology and so on. Among the argumentations, two of the most significant views are the ontological and cosmological argumentation in support of the existence of God, proposed by Italian philosophers Saint Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, respectively. While Anselm’s ontological argument achieved a good amount of support, Aquinas’ cosmological outlook was the result of his strong criticism of the views of the former. However, what seems to be evidently noticeable is that Aquinas’ argument is another improvement of the ontological view of Anselm. Saint Anselm proposes his ontological view on the existence of God in Proslogion, one of the most discussed philosophical discourses of all time. As Anselm argues, he makes certain key points in favor of the existence of God: God is the greatest being than which no greater entity can be conceived of. God may exist in our understanding. That further suggests that God may also exist in reality, because it is always greater to be existing in reality rather than in the mind. Therefore, God exists in reality. So the ontological argument states that God is the greatest possible entity to be conceived, and God exists in both reality as well as in our understanding. Whatever we can assume in the mind, it can also be conceived of as existing in reality too. Therefore, God is the greatest being existing in both reality and in the mind. However, Anselm’s ontological theory has been criticized and strongly rejected by a number of Catholic theologians as well as non-Christians, and particularly by Thomas Aquinas, another Italian theologian. Aquinas’ most acclaimed work is Summa Theologiae or ‘Summary of Theology’, where he discusses his outlook on the existence of God. Criticizing the ontological argumentation of Anselm, Aquinas elaborates his cosmological view on the existence of God in terms of five arguments or proofs. The first proof is argued from the point of view of motion that everything on earth undergoes change with regard to something existing in reality. That means there must be a first mover from which it starts. This mover is constant and known as God. The second proof argues that every effect must have a cause. The first and efficient cause of everything is known as God. The third proof states that God is the main cause for the necessary existence of everything. The fourth proof argues that God is the most perfect thing to possibly conceive of. The fifth proof argues that God is the master planner of everything for its existence in the world. Anselm’s ontological argument proposes God to be the most perfect entity than which nothing greater can be conceived of. Aquinas also supports this view by offering in his cosmological argument that God being the greatest being possible, is the most efficient cause and source of all necessary things on earth. God is the first mover of everything in motion. Both theologians agree that God is the supreme entity that exists in all circumstances, both in reality as well as in our understanding. The supremacy of God is argued by other great philosophers such as Aristotle. In support of the existence of God, Aristotle provides the concept of the ‘unmoved mover’ for discussion. According to him, forms are inherent in things. Forms of all natural things exist in the mind of God as God is the ‘first matter’ or the most elemental entity. As everything on earth undergoes the cycle of change, there has to be a first mover from which it begins. This prime mover is constant while all the other things change due to motion. Aristotle calls this prime mover God, who moves the universe “as the object of desire”. Descartes Heavily influenced by the Renaissance, Descartes is considered as the first modern philosopher who believed that real knowledge can be attained with the help of scientific advancement and rationalistic approach. Descartes’ argumentation is well-developed in his much discussed philosophical discourse, Meditations. Descartes develops a total of six arguments in his discourse. The first meditation involves the concept ‘methodic doubt’. Descartes argues that it is possible to doubt all things in general. In the process of his methodic doubt, Descartes wants to find out the possibility to what extent beliefs can be doubted in an attempt to find something that cannot be doubted. The first meditation includes classification of beliefs by which, Descartes attempts to find out if beliefs of such kind are open to doubt. He follows this systematic approach in order to analyze beliefs so that he can finally come to a rationalistic conclusion of whether all beliefs can be doubted in general. Therefore, Descartes argues that doubting things involves a proper method in order to prove or disprove the beliefs we possess. Explanation of the methodic doubt leads to the second meditation of Descartes, where he asks the elemental question “What am I?” The answer to this question comes from a number of characteristics associated with one’s self including doubting, believing, willing and so on. This further indicates that the recognition of the self can be analyzed through the identification of the elemental properties of the self. Descartes performs a wax experiment in order to find out the essential properties of the self. Descartes finds out that there are mental properties as well as physical properties that are essential to recognize the self. However, the mental properties are much more important than the physical properties. Because, it is the mind, not the body which carries the important properties. Therefore, mind and body are two different phenomena, and they are completely separate from each other. In order to authenticate the value of truth, it is very important to have clarity and distinctness of ideas. Descartes makes this argument in his third meditation. But if all that we perceive clearly and distinctly is true, then error must be impossible. With this, Descartes comes to another point of conclusion (fourth meditation) that we can affirm or deny much more than we understand, and this is what leads us to make mistakes. This further makes him put the argument in favor of the material existence and yet another proof of the existence of God (fifth meditation). The sixth meditation and final conclusion of Descartes’ view states that our grounding of beliefs in the existence of material objects must come from something more secure than just sensory evidence. As Descartes points out, senses are not a part of us, they are inherent. If we have to believe our clear and distinct ideas of material objects to be true, then that proof of authentication must come from things external to us, and not internal. This proof can be evident that rationalistic approach is significant in order to authenticate our beliefs. Hobbes Hobbes’ political and ethical theories are the primary base of his most accountable treatise, Leviathan. The most discussed point in the book is the Hobbesian concept of the ‘state of nature’. The state of nature as depicted by Hobbes is the ungoverned state, where there are no moral laws. It is the state of the condition of mankind in general in which there are no laws. Hobbes discusses five characteristics of the state of nature in Leviathan. These elemental characteristics are the following: Approximate equality: It is the equality of vulnerability of mankind which states that anyone of us can be killed or injured by anyone of us. Self or egoism: Men are generally guided by their own desires. So it is our own egoism that causes us to do all the activities. Non-altruism: Men is selfish by nature. We can even give in to violence if it satisfies our needs. Relative scarcity: Nature does not provide us unlimitedly. That indicates the considerable amount of scarcity around us, which makes men profit from taking what others already have. Rationality: Men are rationalistic, therefore, they know things going around them. This makes them calculate the best means for their wellness. Given these characteristics of the state of nature, Hobbes states that a state of War is inevitable. The equal state of vulnerability among mankind leads to the increase of negative vibes and fear. Besides, scarcity leads to competition, which along with the absence of moral values further leads to a possibility of invasion and destruction. Rationality further leads to a generalized notion of fear of everyone in everyone as all of mankind are in same situation. So in a way, everyone is dragged into it, and this is what Hobbes describes as a state of war with a continual likelihood of violence. Further, with regard to the state of nature, Hobbes argues that it can be now associated with a sovereign authority. With the five main qualities mentioned earlier, the state involves no cooperation among its mankind. In Hobbes’ own words, “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” But as there is no law or government, the question of just or unjust does not value much here. There is no common power to enforce any kind of law, which means there are no moral laws as well. That strongly indicates that men are independent with the right to use their own power to preserve themselves. But then, the concept of ‘right’ in this context also contains the notions of ‘ought’ and ‘duty’. In other words, Hobbes points out that we cannot blame people for doing anything, whether we consider those activities to be right or wrong. Because, everyone does things with a perfectly good reason for himself or herself, the reason in terms of his or her own interest. In that sense, the state of nature refers to a version of egoism. But if everything is justified and right, that means there won’t be anything wrong or any violation of rights. Again, if there is no violation of rights, then we don’t have any rights at all. Hobbes further examines this argument with the illustration of the Prisoner’s Dilemma situation. Hobbes argues that there has to be a mutual agreement among mankind with regard to the authentication of rights and wrongs, just and unjust. And this agreement will be in the interest of all mankind. Hobbes calls it the ‘laws of nature’, the general rules found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do things destructive of his life or of others. As Hobbes thinks, the rational men will agree to respect other people’s lives and property, provided that others are willing to do the same. This is where the notion of a ‘sovereign’ is important in order to enforce that mutual agreement. Hobbes argues that without a sovereign, mankind is in a Prisoner’s Dilemma situation. Within the sovereign, we are asked to sacrifice some of our liberty for the benefit of others, particularly, the liberty to ‘invade and destroy’ others. However, this sacrifice can be considered rational only when other people also agree to divest themselves of their similar liberty. And this is how the concept of sovereign is established and developed. The biggest concern is to set up the sovereign. The set up of the sovereign can be achieved only by mutual agreement among mankind in general. In terms of validating these agreements, Hobbes points out that morality can also be an agreement if the moral values are in our mutual interest to agree on. Therefore, the essence of the agreements should be the mutuality of interests, as argued by Hobbes. At the same time, the rationalistic approach also counts a lot, because, mutually agreeing on a sovereign involves rationalistic mechanism to determine the authentication of the agreements in favor of the sovereign. It is in our best interest to decide with the help of this mechanism that we not only should consider self-interest on individual level, but also on a communal level where everyone has his or her consensus on it. Thus, a collective agreement is important in establishing a sovereign where everything would be based on the common interests of the entire community as one entity. This is what Hobbes explains in his Leviathan, and expects in a sovereign. Reference: Cahn, Steven M. Classics of Western Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2002. Read More