PAGING WILLIAM OF OCCAM:
Just finished reading a consideration of Descartes' ontological argument. The author in question wanted to show that the traditional reading of that argument is impossible because it references multiple different ideas of what God is, all of which, according to one other commentator, 'must' be mutually exclusive. Therefore one needs a new understanding of the argument. But it seems easier to say that if there are multiple, incommensurate ideas of God in the argument, then the argument's just not very good.
I find it admirable, in general, that political theorists are willing to grant to those they study a presumption of coherence, but I wonder if this does not create many interpretations more complicated than they need to be.
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
No comments:
Post a Comment