Curious he uses the term invented rather than discovered for Leibniz & Newton regarding Calculus. Wonder if that was a deliberate statement or just speaking off the cuff. Right now I'm in the math is discovered camp. I Like the idea of math being in God's mind waiting for us. Great course!
Professor Gore. I find a difficulty: It appears two possibilities are either that 1) mathematical geometric points somehow take up some physical geometric space (even if it is infinitely small), or 2) physical geometric space cannot be made up of mathematical geometric points. I’m leaning towards 2) because as far as I can tell, physical geometric space and mathematical geometric space are not the same; both are objective but the former is tangible and the latter abstract. Which one do you think? or am I (and Descartes) committing a false dilemma fallacy? and if so, what is another option? Also, how would you answer those who invoke the ‘Cartesian circle’ as an objection to the soundness of Descartes tautology? And lastly, don’t you think Leibniz is wrong when: 1) He says that everything that God created has metaphysical evil? That implies that A) God created evil and B) contradicts both i) the Bible when it says that death (evil) entered the world with sin (evil), and ii) God’s own Word when He said it IS “Good.” 2) He says that physical evil comes from metaphysical evil, since the Bible says that natural catastrophes (of which the flood is the first and the beginning of the rest) came via sin (moral evil)?
The cosmological argument is not from thomas aquinas but from a thinker called algazel, whom his persian parents named as al ghazali. But ironically , unlike thomas aquinas who repeated the cosmological argument while embracing aristotle , al ghazali wrote that "proof" in a polemic against different flavors of neo-platonists and aristotellians in muslim world. Al ghazali shunned speculative philosophy and speculative theology to the extent that he declared muslim philosophers as apostates.
Please keep posting, highly appreciate your lectures.
Thank you. I indent to, as time and energy permit.
Thank you for the message on Descrates philosophy part2 professor Gore. Very much interesting.
Curious he uses the term invented rather than discovered for Leibniz & Newton regarding Calculus. Wonder if that was a deliberate statement or just speaking off the cuff. Right now I'm in the math is discovered camp. I Like the idea of math being in God's mind waiting for us. Great course!
Yes, off the cuff. I quite agree that mathematics is 'discovered' rather than 'invented.'
I doubt my doubt.
At least it’s good to know that you are the one existing in or to be able to be doubting that you yourself are doubting!
Hmmmm.... reminds me of "Vanity, vanity... everything is vanity.... to what end?"
Professor Gore.
I find a difficulty:
It appears two possibilities are either that 1) mathematical geometric points somehow take up some physical geometric space (even if it is infinitely small), or 2) physical geometric space cannot be made up of mathematical geometric points.
I’m leaning towards 2) because as far as I can tell, physical geometric space and mathematical geometric space are not the same; both are objective but the former is tangible and the latter abstract.
Which one do you think? or am I (and Descartes) committing a false dilemma fallacy? and if so, what is another option?
Also, how would you answer those who invoke the ‘Cartesian circle’ as an objection to the soundness of Descartes tautology?
And lastly, don’t you think Leibniz is wrong when:
1) He says that everything that God created has metaphysical evil? That implies that
A) God created evil and
B) contradicts both
i) the Bible when it says that death (evil) entered the world with sin (evil), and
ii) God’s own Word when He said it IS “Good.”
2) He says that physical evil comes from metaphysical evil, since the Bible says that natural catastrophes (of which the flood is the first and the beginning of the rest) came via sin (moral evil)?
Do you lecture on kant?
It's coming later in this series.
ok thank you !
The cosmological argument is not from thomas aquinas but from a thinker called algazel, whom his persian parents named as al ghazali. But ironically , unlike thomas aquinas who repeated the cosmological argument while embracing aristotle , al ghazali wrote that "proof" in a polemic against different flavors of neo-platonists and aristotellians in muslim world. Al ghazali shunned speculative philosophy and speculative theology to the extent that he declared muslim philosophers as apostates.
Maybe it’s maybelene. 11:20