Blog

Answer the following questions based on this passage (which will be repeated in each question):   “Now take a line which has been cut into two unequal parts, and divide each of them again in the same proportion, and suppose the two main divisions to answer, one to the visible and the other to the intelligible, and then compare the subdivisions in respect of their clearness and want of clearness, and you will find that the first section in the sphere of the visible consists of images.   And by images I mean, in the first place, shadows, and in the second place, reflections in water and in solid, smooth and polished bodies and the like… Imagine, now, the other section, of which this is only the resemblance, to include the animals which we see, and everything that grows or is made.   Would you not admit that both the sections of this division have different degrees of truth, and that the copy is to the original as the sphere of opinion is to the sphere of knowledge?”   Take this line and answer the following 2 questions: “…and suppose the two main divisions to answer, one to the visible and the other to the intelligible..”   Question 2: The intelligible division refers to:

You will be answering one question based on Descartes’ Ontological Argument. From Descartes’ MEDITATION V (Descartes’ Ontological Argument) . . . . But now if because I can draw from my thought the idea of an object, it follows that all I clearly and distinctly apprehend to pertain to this object, does in truth belong to it, may I not from this derive an argument for the existence of God? It is certain that I no less find the idea of a God in my consciousness, that is the idea of a being supremely perfect, than that of any figure or number whatever: and I know with not less clearness and distinctness that an eternal existence pertains to his nature than that all which is demonstrable of any figure or number really belongs to the nature of that figure or number; and, therefore, although all the conclusions of the preceding Meditations were false, the existence of God would pass with me for a truth at least as certain as I ever judged any truth of mathematics to be. Indeed such a doctrine may at first sight appear to contain more sophistry than truth. For, as I have been accustomed in every other matter to distinguish between existence and essence, I easily believe that the existence can be separated from the essence of God, and that thus God may be conceived as not actually existing. But, nevertheless, when I think of it more attentively, it appears that the existence can no more be separated from the essence of God, than the idea of a mountain from that of a valley, or the equality of its three angles to two right angles, from the essence of a triangle; so that it is not less impossible to conceive a God, that is, a being supremely perfect, to whom existence is awanting, or who is devoid of a certain perfection, than to conceive a mountain without a valley . . . . In Descartes’ Ontological argument, when he says God’s existence cannot be separate from his essence, he means:

The Buddha’s system of teaching about the true nature of reality and how to live correctly to transcend it is known as_______.

According to utilitarianism, the focus of morality is:

4. Examples of A Posteriori arguments for God’s existence are:

The Principle of Falsifiabilty states:

Berkeley held esse est percipi true for:

The General problem of evil deals with:   

A Psychological Egoist would agree with the claim:

For Aristotle, the Formal Cause of a sculpture is: