Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Logical Properties', 'What is Philosophy?' and 'Prcis of 'Ruling Passions''

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


3 ideas

28. God / B. Proving God / 2. Proofs of Reason / b. Ontological Proof critique
If Satan is the most imperfect conceivable being, he must have non-existence [McGinn]
     Full Idea: Satan cannot exist because he is the most imperfect conceivable being, and existence is one of the perfections.
     From: Colin McGinn (Logical Properties [2000], Ch.2)
     A reaction: The logic of this seems right to me. Presumably the theologians would hastily deny this as a definition of Satan; he must have some positive qualities (like power) in order to enact his supreme moral imperfections. NIce, though.
I think the fault of the Ontological Argument is taking the original idea to be well-defined [McGinn]
     Full Idea: My own suspicion about the Ontological Argument is that the fault lies in taking notions like 'the most perfect, impressive and powerful being conceivable' to be well-defined.
     From: Colin McGinn (Logical Properties [2000], Ch.2)
     A reaction: I'm tempted to put it more strongly: the single greatest challenge for the theist with intellectual integrity is to give a clear and coherent definition of God. There must be no internal contradictions, and it must be within the bounds of possibility.
28. God / C. Attitudes to God / 5. Atheism
Atheism is the philosopher's serenity, and philosophy's achievement [Deleuze/Guattari]
     Full Idea: It is amazing that so many philosophers take the death of God as tragic. Atheism is not a drama, but the philosopher's serenity and philosophy's achievement.
     From: G Deleuze / F Guattari (What is Philosophy? [1991], 1.4)
     A reaction: It seems to me that it is the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that feels the death of God as a tragedy. Modern Anglo-American philosophers are mostly pretty serene on the subject, unless, like Dennett, they go on the offensive.