How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
spiltteeth
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: June 7th, 2019, 1:16 pm

How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by spiltteeth »

Classical theists make the argument for God from the contingent to the absolute, or from the conditioned to the unconditioned, like Aquinas’s 3rd way.



A devotee of Schopenhauer, I imagine, would make 3 points.


1) You cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality.

2) We only know our experience inside time and space, so how could we know this “God” beyond everything we know ?


3) We cannot know the noumena behind phenomena.



How might one respond ? As a platonist, or theist ?
User avatar
Maffei
Posts: 38
Joined: September 7th, 2017, 7:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Spinoza

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Maffei »

Schopenhauer aside (because I don't know his philosophy),can we put those who were refuted to give then a rejoinder?
The further arguments wouldn't be the same as the first refutation?
If yes, the discussion will be worthwhile in the case of entering to a circle?

But ok, let's try to take the cosmological argument as if it were a rejoinder.

Can you accept the notion that everything that exists exist by a cause? Or do you think they came from nothing?
Have you ever asked yourself that the fact that you are a being makes you alike everything that is?
If something is, can you plainly say that it "is because it is"?
What is less convincent, to say that something is because it is or because it has came to existence?

Now think about the totality of the Universe.
Can you just say that 'it is because it is'? Or is it came from something?
Let us guess that so you concede that it couldn't came from nothing but there is only physical causes.
The physical totality would have itself a cause. The cause of totality would have a cause, that in its turn has a cause, that has a cause...
But why the physical totality has some laws of nature and not others? Wouldn't you seek the answer in something not physical?
If you say that the laws of physical totality has origins in the laws of physical totality, wouldn't you be saying that 'it is because it is' again?

How Schopenhauer answer this?
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Felix »

spiltteeth said: You cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality.
I would agree with this statement.
2) We only know our experience inside time and space, so how could we know this “God” beyond everything we know?
3) We cannot know the noumena behind phenomena
These two points seem to be the same. Some would say (e.g., mystics and yogis) that their awareness is not limited by time and space, and this is validated by their own experience. That is, while noumena, by definition, cannot be apprehended by the senses, they can be apprehended via intuition or extrasensory perception.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by GaryLouisSmith »

spiltteeth wrote: June 7th, 2019, 1:17 pm Classical theists make the argument for God from the contingent to the absolute, or from the conditioned to the unconditioned, like Aquinas’s 3rd way.



A devotee of Schopenhauer, I imagine, would make 3 points.


1) You cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality.

2) We only know our experience inside time and space, so how could we know this “God” beyond everything we know ?


3) We cannot know the noumena behind phenomena.



How might one respond ? As a platonist, or theist ?
As I understand Schopenhauer, the causal nexus grounds only changes of state, not of existential change, which is the change from non-existence to existence and back to non-existence. That assumes that the state of an object is not an existent. As a Platonist I would say that the individual and the properties it exemplifies are all existing things. Schopenhauer, I think, is taking the nominalistic view that the properties of a thing are not real entities. Maybe as a Kantian he believes that they are generated by the observing mind.

Anyway, Schopenhauer argues that the Cosmological Argument assumes that cause and effect can explain existential change, which he says it can’t. It seems to me that it also cannot ground or explain change of state. The causal nexus simply cannot ground change of any kind. There is in fact no such thing as change because all change assumes that there is an underlying substance that remains the same, through a change of state or existential change. But there is no underlying substance. Yes, that is all the vision of Parmenides. A difficult vision. Still, if you work at it you can begin to see that it is true, absolutely true.

If you are interested I will explain why I am an anti-substantialist.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Felix »

"If you are interested I will explain why I am an anti-substantialist."

Go ahead, Gary, it appears spiltteeth lost his front tooth and went off to find it.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by GaryLouisSmith »

Felix wrote: June 27th, 2019, 2:49 am "If you are interested I will explain why I am an anti-substantialist."

Go ahead, Gary, it appears spiltteeth lost his front tooth and went off to find it.
Substance individuates. It is the individual that has or exemplifies properties. It is also that which accounts for self-identity through change. It is that last thing that is the problem.

Consider a piece of fruit on a tree. At first it is very little. As it get older and bigger its color and texture change. Finally it is ripe and then it falls to the ground and withers and drops the seeds within it. All the while it remains that particular individual. It is self-identical through change. Let’s call that individual, that substance, X. At time t1 X is F. at t2 X is G, at t3 X is J, at t4 X is H. Its properties F, G, J, and H change but X remains X. X is little, X is big, X is green, X is red. What keeps all that from being a contradiction is that each fact about X takes place at a different time. If they happened all at once, then it would truly violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.

So now we have to consider t1, t2, t3, t4 … tn. Do such moments that a substance is at really exist? And what about the nexus “at”? Are there really moments that individuals are at? Let’s assume that there are. These moments are related to each other. One is much later than another and one is more recent. So far, so good. Now along comes the Theory of Relativity, which says that the “distance” between moments changes according to one’s point of view. It can even happen that what is after from one point of view can be earlier from another. Moments it seems won’t stay put. They are not absolute, but relative. Absolute time vs. relative time. Newtonian time vs. Einsteinian time. With the coming of relativity, the whole notion of there being fixed moments that objects are at, becomes untenable.

So if we cannot say that the existence of absolute time and moments guarantees that change does not become contradictory, then what does? The notion of substance requires the notion of absolute time to avoid becoming self-contradictory. So either we have to drop the idea of substance or think of some other way to save it from contradiction. What other way is there? Beats me. As far as I know no philosopher has thought of any. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the problem of accounting for self-identity through change is a philosophical problem that human beings cannot solve. The End.

I half-way solve the problem by denying the existence of change tout court. I stand with Parmenides and Nagarjuna in that belief. A mad vision.
User avatar
Le Vautre
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: June 21st, 2019, 9:58 am

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Le Vautre »

Schopenhauer in his On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason said that the error of theists is to think there is an escape to causality. I can say randomly that we can imagine a God without being, that is to say beyond causality. It's quite easy, in fact.

But I can't understand the second and third points, because Schopenhauer never said that. On the contrary, it's what Schopenhauer criticizes in the appendix against Kant in the World as Will and Representation's first volume. ...
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7094
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Sculptor1 »

There is no way to answer a critique of the cosmologial argument, since the argument itself has nothing to recommend it.
I'm not sure exactly what Shop said, but since the argument is;

"an argument for the existence of God which claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e. are contingent), and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being which exists independently or necessarily."

It is inherently self refuting as contradictory.
User avatar
Le Vautre
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: June 21st, 2019, 9:58 am

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Le Vautre »

Could you elaborate?
User avatar
spiltteeth
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: June 7th, 2019, 1:16 pm

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by spiltteeth »

Sculptor1, Well, I've never heard the argument formulated that way, of course Aquinas believes there ARE things that exist in the universe that are not contingent, but there are some beings that lack the power to sustain their own existence - their existence is contingent upon something else....and so is THAT thing...and so on, until an unconditioned thing is necessary to ground it.

You'll have to help me see the contraction, I don't see it...

Gary, thanks for the response , I think you're correct, it is not a "cause" as Schop defines it - a change in an existing substance - and it never claims that God "causes" in such a manner, so I think a theist would agree with Schop, rather it is that "God" donates being, or that contingent beings are ontologically dependent upon "God."

Your idea's are interesting. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Einstein's theory depend upon an observer ? Such that he is not making ontological claims ? And further that it depends upon multiple viewers ? So for person 1 an event might appear to occur after can appear earlier - but only for another person ? But for person 1, if only there were one person in the universe, no such *apparent contradiction were possible ? And wouldn't a "God" outside of time solve this problem ? I thought the consequence of relativity was that we in fact live in a timeless cosmos a “block universe” — a static block of space-time - which is objective, yet will appear differently depending on the viewers relative orientation....
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by GaryLouisSmith »

Le Vautre wrote: June 27th, 2019, 10:34 am Schopenhauer in his On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason said that the error of theists is to think there is an escape to causality. I can say randomly that we can imagine a God without being, that is to say beyond causality. It's quite easy, in fact.
I'm having a little trouble parsing your sentences. Sorry about that. I am a theist and I have never liked the cosmological argument, probably because i don't believe in the causal nexus as what can be the ground of one thing bring another thing into existence. Could you please reword you above sentences to help me understand them.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Felix »

Gary, Schopenhauer is demanding dramamine, your peregrinations have made him nauseous!
GaryLouisSmith: Now along comes the Theory of Relativity, which says that the “distance” between moments changes according to one’s point of view. It can even happen that what is after from one point of view can be earlier from another. Moments it seems won’t stay put. They are not absolute, but relative.
Not quite... time slows down as one approaches the speed of light, relative to a stationary observer's perception of time, but the difference is negligible until one's speed is about 2/3rds that of the speed of light.
With the coming of relativity, the whole notion of there being fixed moments that objects are at, becomes untenable.
I'm afraid that never was a tenable notion or even a notable tenet.
The notion of substance requires the notion of absolute time to avoid becoming self-contradictory.
For all intents and purposes, time is absolute for us, at least until we are traveling close to the speed of light. But maybe we don't need to do it physically, just increase our perceptual powers to quasi-light-speed, perhaps even to the speed of light, wherein time would stand still and we'd enter a timeless state of mind. Sri Aurobindo spoke of the "mind of light," perhaps his bodhi had reached orbital escape velocity.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Felix »

GaryLouisSmith: "I'm having a little trouble parsing your sentences."

It sounded like Le Vautre was just disagreeing with Schopenhauer.

Le Vautre: "But I can't understand the second and third points, because Schopenhauer never said that."

Yes, they don't sound like statements a Buddhist would make, which he more or less was.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Le Vautre
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: June 21st, 2019, 9:58 am

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Le Vautre »

@GaryLouisSmith, it just means what phenomenology tells us: the apriorities of experience, or intentionality etc., don't exclude transcendence, namely, that the objects can be something else. On this basis, God might be what gives us this idea (Being gives beings for Heidegger)...
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by GaryLouisSmith »

Felix wrote: June 27th, 2019, 7:25 pm Gary, Schopenhauer is demanding dramamine, your peregrinations have made him nauseous!
GaryLouisSmith: Now along comes the Theory of Relativity, which says that the “distance” between moments changes according to one’s point of view. It can even happen that what is after from one point of view can be earlier from another. Moments it seems won’t stay put. They are not absolute, but relative.
Not quite... time slows down as one approaches the speed of light, relative to a stationary observer's perception of time, but the difference is negligible until one's speed is about 2/3rds that of the speed of light.
With the coming of relativity, the whole notion of there being fixed moments that objects are at, becomes untenable.
I'm afraid that never was a tenable notion or even a notable tenet.
The notion of substance requires the notion of absolute time to avoid becoming self-contradictory.
For all intents and purposes, time is absolute for us, at least until we are traveling close to the speed of light. But maybe we don't need to do it physically, just increase our perceptual powers to quasi-light-speed, perhaps even to the speed of light, wherein time would stand still and we'd enter a timeless state of mind. Sri Aurobindo spoke of the "mind of light," perhaps his bodhi had reached orbital escape velocity.
Are you taking the idealist's position that it is human perception that gives context and therefore the truth and reality of the world? If that is gone, are there moments that objects are at? Is there, for you, an objective reality away from human perception?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021