Thread 17896794

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4ztxtXvJn8

Descartes BTFO

[də.ˈscɑɹ.ti:z]

>>17896794 (OP)
Without even watching that, why Descartes was wrong summed up

1. Cartesian circle is completely fallacious argument for God
2. Cogito and extensa are not separate but reside within one another. Think Heraclitus or Aristotle.
3. Animals have as much soul as humans do. His arguments against animals having intellect isn’t even particularly convincing let alone animals not having soul.

Basically, just read Plato or Aristotle instead of this jackass. “21 rules for direction of the mind” is brilliant however, though that is because it is a work on logic not philosophy. He should have followed his own rules when making Meditations because it is a mess.

>>17896794 (OP)
His argument is quite limited by English grammar limitations. In Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) you have the null subject and the Agent complement.

In Romance languages, an action always requires an agent even if you can just omit the subjet in the phrase, the subjet/agent is still there, hidden but implied and necessary for an action.

In English you say: It rains.
In Romance languages you can say: Rains

But the rain in itself is caused by the storm. By pure logic, every action necessarily requires a subject. The subject cannot be the action itself, since, going back to scholastic physics and metaphysics, the action itself is an accident, not a substance.

And for connatural accidents, such as rain for clouds or the action of thinking for man, they necessarily occur and are derived from a subject whose existence entails the accident as a consequence of its essence.

Man is a rational animal, and storm clouds carry rainwater.