Without a tangible “thing” to split, it could be argued that divisibility has no real meaning at all in relation to things that by their nature cannot be split. To wit, Descartes’ argument supposes that a mind divided would result in absurdity, such as two fractions of a greater mind, both with capacity to think, or in other words, two new minds, he takes this as evidence that a mind cannot be divided; but it would seem plausible also to say that this absurdity is the result of applying terms that only have meaning when applied to things with extension. In other words; a mind may well be capable of division, even if it was substantively different and separate from matter and body, thus we may conclude that Descartes cannot prove the distinction between mind and matter by ascribing notions of relative divisibility or non-divisibility to them. Additionally much of Descartes thought regarding the indivisibility of the mind is based on a preceding conception of the mind as non-physical before the argument proves
However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built. Ironically, his skepticism offers such that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be a deceiving being. As such, my doubt about the possibility of such a being serves to undermine the greater doubt that is supposed to be generated by this being. In order for the evil demon to generate such a degree of doubt it must be possible for it to exist. However, Descartes does not provide enough proof for his claim of its possibility.
If the soul cannot possibly begin when a person does, when and where else could the event take place? However, Darrow 's argument is impaired by his incongruous application of the term soul. He mentions that the soul is popularly equated with identity, consciousness and memory, but fails to specify whether it is this notion or another that he uses. (42) Presuming, for the sake of moving forward, that it is this definition he himself adopts, it seems directly in conflict with his belief that the soul would exist outside of the physical body. (43) Darrow 's argument lacks a clear explication of his concept of the soul and, furthermore, it presents a confusing, contradictory account of the soul 's nature and
Mackie’s argument from queerness is founded upon a naturalistic account of the world. The main idea of the argument from queerness seems to imply that we should not believe in the existence of objective values because they would not fit in with a naturalistic world. He is convinced that there are no moral facts and properties, and we cannot possibly have moral knowledge. There are two parts in Mackie’s argument from queerness, one metaphysical and the other epistemological. The metaphysical component
And why or how we are (or are not) justified believing that it is? A normal human being who does not understand philosophy would find the arguments from the above readings overwhelming as they wouldn’t see the need to over analyse life, they would want to accept what they already know rather than creating arguments over things they cannot even see nor understand. Philosophers cause us to doubt our beliefs as they provide arguments that leave one wondering whether their beliefs are false or not, just as the arguments provided below. According to Descartes (mediation 1, 1641) we are not justified in believing that the world is as it appears, in his first mediation he begins by noting that there are things he once believed in but later learned they were not true. He worries that some of his existing beliefs may be false; therefore set to “tear down” his existing beliefs and rebuild them from scratch.
For how he can be certain that 2+2= 4 and not 5, how can he know for sure that he is not being deceived into believing the answer to be 5 due to a demon. But even if an evil demon did indeed exist, in order to be misled, Descartes himself must exist. As there must be an “I”, that can be deceived. Conclusively, upon Descartes’ interpretations we can come to decipher that in order for someone to exist they must indeed be able to think, to exist as a thinking thing. Through our understanding we can come to learn that the existence of conscious self is not enough to support the claim of a thinking thing, and that he solely exists on the basis of thinking and being a thing being.
Many people feel that they must learn who they are and what their purpose is in order to find themselves. Thurman makes a point to explain that this was the great philosopher Descartes’s mistake. Descartes did not accept his selflessness, instead, he made the conclusion that he could not find himself because he is himself and cannot find something that is the thing doing the searching. He was afraid that if he could not find himself, he did not exist, but Thurman makes the point that one cannot not exist. It is impossible to exist as nothing but one can exist in nothingness.
McCloskey claimed that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” At first glance of this statement I am understanding the statement as that something doesn’t allow us to come up with a belief or solution, which is silly. In the same thinking one could say that based on his arguments he is not allowed to assume there is no God. Nevertheless, based on the existence of a contingent being it points toward the existence of a necessary being because they require an ultimate cause. Beyond this, the cosmological argument may be limited. Upon a person believing this they will surely be thirsting for more information of who God is.
According to Camus, life is an irrational state of being in which humans create rational concepts like ‘society’ or ‘justice’ to try and make sense of it. Meursault’s rejection of this kind of rationality both at the beginning and the end of The Stranger reflects how life will go on unaffected by whether superficial, and potentially non-existent, concepts like justice are realized and that there is nothing man can do about it other than to accept
Descartes does not explicitly state his system of knowledge, but he builds up a true and certain foundation of knowledge in the first meditation of his book, Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes’s ultimate goal is find the foundation of knowledge that is indubitable. In fulfillment of his goal, Descartes thinks, he must give up all the preconceived idea he used to have and start from the foundation. Descartes develops his first mediation by illustrating the deception of our senses, demonstrating the dreaming example and lastly creating the “malicious demon” assumption. These steps have a profound impact on building up Descartes’s “Cogito theory”, which he will address in the second mediation.