Descarte's ontological argument and ahuangzi's arguments against realism essay examples

Descarte’s Ontological arguments focus on the reality about the existence of God. On the other hand, Ahuangzi’s arguments focus on the reality about life and knowledge. Despite the fact that there are various philosophers who have criticized these works, there are various reasons to support them.
Secondly, in his fifth ontological argument, Descartes holds a strong belief that God is a supremely perfect being. This means that God has all the positive attributes that entail a perfect human being. Such attributes includes omnipotence, honesty, existence and benevolence. However, Descartes makes refutable conclusion that God’s perfection is dependent on his existence. In fact, God works through nature and his perfection can be proved not only through human beings but also through other forms of nature (Sorell 16). Descartes argues that we can always prove that God exists because we have the idea of it. He maintains that by the fact that we can prove God’s existence, we cannot have another supreme to show it not true this is because we all have equal measure of ideas within our minds. Since we have ideas that have finite capacity, we can only come up with finite things. He argues that when we are able to develop a greater idea other that what can be developed in our finite minds, then, it must be placed by another entity who is God (Descartes 36). On the other hand, he believes God has an infinite capacity hence infinite mind and created himself. The support can be asserted further in his claim that there must be a change of all change. This is because nothing can change itself. In fact, nothing goes through a series of changes and end up in an infinite regress.
At the beginning of his meditations, Descartes demonstrates that the knowledge possessed by God is much more than the knowledge of human beings. His ontological arguments show that god is above all creations. Descartes proves this by stating that the world does not owe its origin from any human being. What is natural is not as a result of human effort nor generated by human beings. His truth about the knowledge is further supported by the natural light which reveals mysteries to us. He stipulates that the idea about existence of God cannot itself originate from us, it must be revealed to us by God himself. This implies that no human being has the power to understand the existence of God unless God himself reveals himself to human beings. This can be supported by the argument that no human being can fully describe God. No one in history has been able to give vivid and rigid descriptions about God. This is because God himself is so great to be understood by human beings.
He maintains that God existence is true. He declares God’s existence is no doubt in his faculty of judgment. He refutes the claim that any form of evil genius may have taken part in his claims. He asserts that his claims have been developed by natural light. This is supported by the fact that God does not deceive. Although some critics view his arguments as being circular, his claims about the existence of God provides lots of logics. He creates a clear and different perception about the good God. There are distinct truths that declare and prove God’S existence. The claim that God is an external entity and does not only exit in our minds but can also be supported by Descartes first and second principle (Descartes 56). In his first principle, he talks of a principle and does not vividly state whether that infinite principle is God. However, based on his attributes about the infinite being and his role in creations, then, it can be proved that there exists a super being who is God.
Ahuangzi’s, a Chinese philosopher’s also wrote important philosophies. His studies are based on the argument that life is limited and the knowledge to be gained is indeed unlimited. This correlates with Descartes arguments and infinite and finite being. It is true that human being’s life is limited. However, the knowledge that can be gained in this short period of life, it is indeed unlimited. In his study, he states declares that to use limited to pursue which is unlimited is folly. He argues that our language and cognition is shaped by our past experience. However, things experienced in the past are not the same as to what we are experiencing now and in future. However, our experience is also enriched by what we acquire in order to maintain certain standards (Chinn 16). Therefore, out choice of action is always determined by what we have acquired from all these. I actually support this argument since what is in our minds plays a great role shaping our actions. Our course of action preserves our lives and presumption that death is bad.
In his fourth section, “ The Great Happiness”, Ahuangzi sees a skull on the roadside and feels pity (Chinn 19). However, the skull retorts, “ how do you know it’s bad to be dead?”. This argument is also true because unless you are in that state, the perception that people possess cannot be proved. The perception that death is bad is possessed by the living. He also gives realism about beauty stating that there is no universal standard about beauty. Therefore, there is universality in description who is beautiful than the other. It is all in what we perceive to be beauty which of course varies from one region to another. Just as Descartes, Ahuangzi studies are based on observation and learning about the natural world.
In conclusion, Ahuangzi arguments are based on a powerful being Dao just like those of Descartes that are based on God. However, Ahuangzi’s are highly based on what he observed and learned about nature while those of Descartes are based on mere ideas, meditations and perceptions. Nevertheless, to me, the two arguments about reality holds water.

Works Cited

Chinn, Ewing Y.  Zhuangzi and Rerlativistic Scepticism.  Asian Philosophy, Nov. 1997
Sorell. T, ‘ Descartes a Very Short Introduction’, Oxford University Press, 2000
Descartes. R, ‘ Discourse on Method and The Meditations’, Penguin Classics, 1968