The dream argument was a method by which he could doubt the existence of the world around him (the 'external world'), on the grounds that he might be dreaming. The dream argument claims that we have no way of determining definitively at any time whether or not we are dreaming. Hence, it is possible at any given time that we are dreaming. Descartes thinks that this possibility is enough to damage knowledge. It is not possible to know if we're not dreaming because even in dreams we are so sure that the dream is the reality and then, only when we wake up we realise it was only a dream.
However, since Anselm then brought in a second argument to counter this criticism, Gaunilo couldn’t have succeeded in destroying Anselm’s argument without then faulting that one (of which he didn’t). However, I cannot doubt that Gaunilo’s first constrictive criticism of Anselm’s ontological argument wasn’t a valid point. Not everyone’s perfect island can take a form in the real world as it is highly illogical and extremely impossible. Qualities of this perfect island may be scattered out across the Earth, but will never be a collective whole for this individual. As a fellow Christian monk at the time, it was probably the right thing to do as not every Christian views everything the same.
Critically assess two arguments in support of widespread local skepticism. Skepticism may at first seem like a fruitless field of study, for how can the study of a topic which claims knowledge is impossible provide any greater insight into the philosophical realm as any conclusions themselves are knowledge. It could be said this is true yet discounting this view totally would be ignorant due to the arguments that have been put forth in its favour over its time in existence. Local as opposed to global skepticism differs in that a local skeptic does not believe all knowledge is impossible but that certain kinds of knowledge such as about time, the external world, other minds and of empirical generalisations. The Spanish philosopher Miguel De Unamuno said “The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.” On this basis it could be said that the skepticism is the deepest of all the philosophical areas of study as no true conclusion can be drawn fully meaning it will be explored more with time.
It’s amazing to always be able to think and still have you mind wonder. We all want that but just are not able to admit it. Paranoid Schizophrenia is one of those things you think without thinking. I mean your brain wonders and wonders. Experts call it delusions but it’s really just a day dream.
For example; the vast majority of humanity recognise what a horse is, despite no two horses being the same – Plato thought this was because our souls spent time in the other realm where Forms are present and the form of a “perfect” horse, was there. A more adept example however would be, rather than a horse, the existence of beauty in the “Realm of Becoming”. Plato was far more intrigued by the concepts of beauty, truth, justice etc. So, although humanity recognise the concept of beauty, no two people perceive it as the same thing and many different things can be thought of as beautiful. The Platonic ideal is that beauty has an unchanging “perfect form” in the “Realm of Being”.
Descartes first believes the reality of life but then questions the good because things may be altered by an evil demon. He questions what the truth is and if there is even a good God. He has no ability to completely know the truth. The “Cogito” argument which is trying to prove Descartes’ existence is questioned in many aspects. Imagining and senses are two big arguments for his existence.
Critically examine one of Descartes' arguments for the existence of God Descartes' Meditation III provides a causal and cosmological argument that God exists. Having used the Method of Doubt in Meditations I and II in order to reject his false beliefs, Descartes assumes that the only things he knows at this point are the conclusions reached at Meditations I and II. Having also doubted judgements in arithmetic and geometry because of the possibility of the existence of an evil demon, Descartes wishes to find out if there is a God, and if so, is this God deceitful? If He is good, then it would follow that mathematics and simple natures could be reinstated. In order to disprove the evil demon hypothesis, Descartes examines the different degrees of reality in things in comparison to God.
This quote reveals the harsh reality of life, that dreams may not come true if limits are not considered. People tend to dream dreams without limits. Reality plays a big role in dreaming. In order for one to achieve their dreams they must have limits. People simply just cannot start at the bottom and expect to be at the top the next day.
One or the other had to have been delusional about their teachings. Clifford questions who was delusional, or if they both were. There is no evidence that Mohammad or Buddha knew what the truth was, and how does one know that Mohammad was not dreaming or hallucinating about the angel Gabriel appearing to him, and that his visit to paradise was not only a dream. Based on this, Clifford concludes that the greatness of someone should not give us reason to believe their truths. Clifford uses another example about the prophet to support his argument.
Because of this assumption, Descartes chooses to throw out all knowledge he has thus acquired and to start on a clean slate. He casts doubt on everything, but uses it as a tool to achieve certainty and to find a situation he can be absolutely certain of. Descartes also points out his Dream Hypothesis in which one can never be sure he is not dreaming unless he is awake, and uses the wax example to illustrate his point that one cannot fully rely on sensory perceptions for they can sometimes deceive us. The first truth that Descartes establishes is that he is a thinking thing- “a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wants, refuses, and also imagines and senses.” (Descartes 5) This is based on the logic that he