Re: CHAT Cartesian parataxis (was: ANNOUNCE: First longer sentence in S7)

En réponse à Henrik Theiling :

>Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...> writes:
> >...
> > as the ego is able to define it. And the ego can. And then - and
> > that's the bit I disagree with - he goes on arguing that actual
> > existence is "more perfect" than virtual existence, and thus that his
> > idea of a perfect being needed, by definition, to exist itself, and
> > outside of his own imagination. Hence, "God" exists).
>
>Ok.  In contrast of inferring existence from being, this is theory
>then.  I would not draw conclusions from theory and would not think
>anything like existence can be proven for anything/one than yourself.
>It is quite an interesting and, for me, exhaustive finding to define
>existence by thinking.  But anything beyond that is theory.
I completely agree :) .


> > I personally don't feel that actual existence is any better than
> > non-existence outside my own thoughts.
>
>I don't understand that sentence.
I was a bit tired yesterday, and it feels in my writing style. What I meant 
is this: to prove the existence of this perfect being, Descartes argued 
that existence is more perfect than inexistence, that something which 
actually exists is more perfect than something which I imagine but has no 
existence in the outside world. Non-existence is a *flaw*, according to 
Descartes. So, in his train of thought, non-existence is a flaw, so a 
perfect being which doesn't exist is a contradiction in terms (it would be 
flawed, and thus wouldn't be perfect). So his argument is: I can imagine a 
perfect being, with no flaw whatsoever. Non-existence is a flaw. The 
perfect being doesn't have that flaw, so it doesn't have that non-existence 
flaw. Ergo (ad absurdum) the perfect being I imagine necessarily exists, 
i.e. necessarily exists outside of me, as an independent being (otherwise 
it wouldn't be perfect).
Now I come, and simply say: I disagree that non-existence is a flaw. If I 
don't agree with this assumption, the rest of his argumentation falls 
apart. That's what I meant.

I hope that's now clearer :) .

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.