Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: If a camera ...

Subject: [OM] Re: If a camera ...
From: "Joel Wilcox" <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:25:39 -0600
(Kicks a block of wood, a la Samuel Johnson),  "Thus I refute him."

Joel W.

On 3/9/07, Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> All right, here we go -
>
> The ontological proof of the existence of the P1 -
>
> 1. It is possible to conceive of a camera that is better than the one
> that you now own, in every way.
>
> 2. It follows then that you can conceive of a camera even better than
> that one - and one better again.
>
> 3. Therefore there must be an ultimate camera, one that is perfect in
> every way. Let us call it P1.
>
> 4. If something did not exist, then it would not be perfect.
>
> 5. Therefore, the ultimate camera, P1, must exist.
>
>
> That's the St Anselm version. Unbreakable logic.
> A Cartesian ontological  proof would be more subtle -
>
> 1. I know that I own several cameras but they are all imperfect.
> 2. I can conceive of a camera that would be perfect.
> 3. This camera must exist (see above) and yet I have not yet owned it.
> 4. Thus the only one who can own it and sell it to me is Olympus.
> (NB. Canon is clearly the evil demon).
>
> or
>
> 1. I have an idea of a perfect camera.
> 2. Where does the idea of a perfect camera come from?
> 4. Nothing perfect can come from the imperfect.
> 3. Thus it cannot come from me as I am an imperfect being and cannot
> have perfect thoughts.
> 4. The idea must come from Olympus, the creator.
> 5. And that camera must exist as non-existence would render it
> imperfect.
>
>
>
> Now if you are not religious, perhaps you'd prefer a phenomenologial
> approach, in the manner of Husserl? It's not as concrete though.
> 1. The thought and the thing itself are inextricably linked.
> 2. Consequently the thought is as much a part of existence as the
> object.
> 3. We have assigned a meaning to 'P1', a directed intentionality.
> 4. This directed intentionality cannot help but affect the physical
> reality. (Think new physics).
> 5. Thus we must be thinking about something, a 'P1' that exists in
> some form, even if only as a shared meaning.
> Conclusion: 'P1' must exist in some form.

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz