Euthyphro Dilemma and Descartes' Method of Hyperbolic Doubt - Essay Example

To get to the Euthyphro dilemma, we have to go through the Definition Rounds of pious. Euthyphro cannot seem to define pious without giving empirical examples or what Socrates says "actions". If the first Definition round, he says that to be pious is to prosecute the one who commits a crime. This does not help as it never talks about the one who committed the crime. This is not acceptable as a man can be accused without being able to defend himself. In Round 2, we get closer to the second question. Socrates disagrees with Euthyphro's argument as the gods contradict each other. Their affiliation determines who they like and don't like. If Euthyphro says "What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious" then it would be proven illogical in Socrates' counter argument that Athena and Ares consider the same group of people both pious and impious. These qualities should be universal but they are not. This is the principle of Euthyphro's Dilemma.(Round 3) The gods can agree and be universal in their choices. Definition Round 3 : "the pious is what all gods love.. and what all the gods hate, is the impious…" Socrates gives strenuous opposition because the answer is not straight forward. "Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?" Euthyphro agrees that it cannot be answered universally. The gods love some things because they are pious or good. This shows that that the god- loved and pious have to be different. The idea of right and wrong have to have an intrinsic anchor. Socrates goes ahead an explains cause and effect. Euthyphro's arguments cannot only be based on the same laws of the physical universe. He based his laws of piety on the same laws of the physical universe. The laws of piety are not rules and regulations which can been governed by gods or bodies of government. The best answer accepted by both Socrates and Euthyphro is to question one because the pious can be immaterial grammatically as it can be a person or an animal. The moment gods like it the "thing becomes pious. The Euthyphro Dilemma is presented by Socrates as showing that pious cannot be grammatically defined as it was done in ancient Greek. 2)If the Universe is like a watch the universe represents a complex organism of parts which function together . Paley never develops the analogy but compares the universe to a rock in the woods and a watch. He uses this comparison to develop his version of the Design argument which is later refuted by Hume's counter arguments. He knows that a rock would not be easily accepted as having a Designer as a creator. Using the watch as an analogy to the comparison to the world assumes that there is a designer to the universe who must be God. Functionality assumes a designer which assumes the existence of God. The watch analogy shows the complexity of natural order and thus an existence of a creator. The natural events in life cannot be contributed to happenstance. Yes a watch has problems as does nature. A watch has a maker though you don't see him. You cannot see the inner workings of the watch though they exist. They have been put together as the universe was put together. They were designed before they were created. The universe functions because of the work of the presence of an omnipotent designer. Even though the watch can have problems in working properly, it was designed in its inception. A perfect example would be the climatic problems we are having in the world. The weather system was designed but it is not working as it should. If the watch is missing a battery or needs to be taken to a watch maker because it is no longer keeping proper time, these are two conditions we would not be able to fix because of our lack of understanding. This does not assume that there was not a designer. The casing of the watch as well as all other items in the world have structure, otherwise there would be total chaos. The watch would not be able to hold together its parts. He uses a deductive argument if noticeable things were designed then they were produced by design and not nature, therefore certain things in nature were designed. Therefore things that were designed require a designer thus God who is omnipresent. Hume's Philo refutes Paley's Design argument. Philo says the Designer/Creator may exist but it cannot be considered God. God is infinite and the Designer is finite. The perfect example is the watch. When the watch stops working most of us put it in the trash. Philo uses the life death principle as finite. Birds and fish are finite in their existence and the power they execute. He does not take into account the who universal system. God is an infinite creator. As the world is diverse and full of good and bad, we can assume that there has been a creator. The universe implies that it was designed (Hume through Philo) but was it a question of planning? Hume proposes the Epicurean Hypothesis. When a finite number of combinations will be achieved creating order, a "design" will be established: oceans, algae, fish, gills, breathing in water…… Man is incapable of ascertaining the existence of God. He therefore is obliged to wager thus Pascal's Wager. There are four premises . In the first premise, he says you have all to win and if you lose, you lose nothing. This assumes that you have given a positive probability in the existence of God. The 2nd premise implies expectation that God exist. There can be no reasoning as God is finite. The third premise is in order to rationalize you have to be able to see the utility of believing in God. He goes on by saying you have to wager as there is not enough information. There are four options or outcomes according to the quadrants. 1. If I believe in God and He does exists I gain all and I go to Heaven. 2. If I believe in God and he doesn't exist, I still have a good life on earth because I live with good moral values. 3. If I don't believe in God and he does exist, I have a life of Hell or I go to Hell and my payout is negative. 4. If I don't believe in God and God doesn't exist, I live as a bad person would live and my payout is zero or less than zero. In Option one , the pros are heaven and a virtuous life. The cons are a loss of earthly delights and a possible loss of the effects of reason. The good is obtained and the negative ramifications are risky. The lack of choice would never be given up so I would choose to have the "payout". In option two, the pros are a virtuous life, even though God doesn't exist. You actually would live a more righteous life than someone who proved the existence of God as his beliefs would be based on the "weakness of the flesh". The effect of being wrong would not be that important because we could not prove either way the pros or the cons therefore the payout still remains positive. In option three, you are mostly in a 'loose loose' situation. In option four, the payout is less than zero but you would be able to live the life you wished. Your payout would be zero or less than zero. Pascal says it is better to believe in the existence of God as the payouts are more. He says in option two that the benefits of life can be higher as the person leads a more virtuous life not being constraint by the problems of religion. These assumptions require that you accept that God could exist and that there is causality and consequence. 3) Descartes' method of hyperbolic doubt takes us through all the different levels of doubts showing us that the true foundation of knowledge is to doubt everything that is not certain and proceed from there. His Mediations takes us through different levels of his progressive stages. In addition to his hyperbolic doubt, Mediation I presents his Dream Arguments, Deceptive God Arguments and the Evil Demon Arguments. The importance to derive from these arguments is that our senses and reasoning need to be doubted. Dreams can be so realistic that they can be unreal. My beliefs in God can be so different and deceptive to the person's sitting next to me that we both can be living in a deception. The same argument can be applied to the concept of Hell or the concept of good and bad. The implication that there are multiple mistakes in the universe make our senses fallible . Cognito may be the only thing that is left after removing all doubt. Cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am. Everything has been doubted: our bodies, mathematics, God, our memories, senses, dreams…."Even if I assume that there is an all powerful deceiver, from the very fact that I am deceived it follows that I exist". Man has experience of physical perception and of thinking. He is a thinking object. My knowledge has come through the thinking process of my mind. The mind is a higher edifice than the body as we know all things through the mind. Descartes explains this through 'Cartesian Dualism- the mind is separate and distinct from the material body. He uses the example of wax. It changes forms in fire but it remains wax. We know this through our minds. Our bodies have no involvement unless we put our fingers into the hot wax and then it is a question of perception which is a perception of a sense of warmth. We have differentiated between the "argument of real knowledge as a rational process and not a perception of the senses. We have made the difference between mind and body and therefore can say our concept of knowledge comes from pure empirical understanding and not our imagination. In the foundation of knowledge is to remove all doubt from everything, then we can say we know what is certain. I know I am at the computer, writing this exam , drinking my coffee. Descartes' hyperbolic doubt would show that I have made the distinction of what is certain and what could possibly be a perception. Cognito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. I only have my rational perception. In today's era, assumptions are made in order to make progress. A stupid example, I know by the consequences of using a computer that I can work harder and more quickly than if I were to work by hand. I do not have the knowledge of how or why. I am more interested in the consequences of my efforts than the knowledge necessary in answering the basic questions. Knowing without a doubt today limits are advancements both personally and in society. It impedes taking risk and doing research. Simply knowing leaves doors open to making advancements . Children are a good example of simply knowing. By simply knowing makes curiosity grow. It is like a plant which needs water. Read More