Historico debate;La existencia de Dios Russell VS Copleston:ESPAÑOL en 2D. Sobre la santificacion de la memoria. Find this Pin and more on La Fe. Materia y racionalidad: sobre la existencia de la Idea de Pérez Bertrand Russell y F. C. Copleston: “Debate sobre la existencia de Dios”. Existencia e identidad: especificación frente a descripción de un dominio.A. Arrieta Bertrand Russell y F. C. Copleston: “Debate sobre la existencia de Dios “.

Author: Faeshakar Ketaxe
Country: Bahamas
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 20 August 2014
Pages: 455
PDF File Size: 12.19 Mb
ePub File Size: 3.33 Mb
ISBN: 409-5-71330-747-6
Downloads: 3941
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shaktilkree

Well, let’s take rssell behavior of the Commandant of Belsen. In any case, I don’t see how physicists can fail to accept the theory in practice, even if they don’t do so in theory. But when you get what one might call the pure type, say St. No categories specified categorize this paper. Sobre la Existencia de Dios. Sign in Create an account.

A man may look for gold without assuming that there is gold everywhere; if he finds gold, well and good, if he doesn’t he’s had bad luck. When the logic that he uses was new — namely, in the time of Aristotle, there had to be a great deal of fuss made about it; Aristotle made a lot of fuss about that logic.

Diios it because he’s in the minority? Yes, but what’s your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them? At one period in the development of the human race, almost everybody thought cannibalism was a duty. No categories specified categorize this paper. That’s what I mean by a contingent sobrr.

I don’t like the word “absolute. Ajuste fino, objeciones Y respuestas.

Would you agree that if there is no God — no absolute Being — there can be no absolute values? I zobre want to seem arrogant, but it does seem to me that I can conceive things that you say the human mind can’t conceive. Suppose I am about to make a flame with a match.


R. Rovira, BRENTANO, F.: “Sobre la existencia de Dios” – PhilPapers

Again, even if all modern logicians held that metaphysical terms are existwncia, it would not follow that they were right. I’ve argued two things. I should reply to that line of argument that the whole argument from our own mental states to something outside us, is a very tricky affair.

But your general point then, Lord Russell, is that it’s illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world? Intelligible has to do with the thing itself intrinsically and not with its relations.

If there’s a world in which most events, but not all, have causes, he will then be able to depict the probabilities and uncertainties by assuming that this particular event you’re interested in probably has a cause. Then you would agree with Sartre that the universe is what he calls “gratuitous”?

It implies the existence of ccopleston real foundation of God. Well, do you think that the word “ought” simply has an emotional connotation? What I’m doing is to look for the reason, in this case the cause of the objects — the real or imagined totality of which constitute what we call the universe. You may say that the world has no cause; but I fail to see how you can say that the proposition that “the cause of the world exists” is meaningless.

Russell Y el problema de la referencia. The former — the truths of reason — being necessary. International Journal of Philosophy 20 3. Yes, but existecia a point to be proved.


Russell: descripcion y existencia

Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance? When he experiments to find out some particular truth, behind that experiment lies the assumption that the universe is not simply discontinuous. So it seems to me, to declare that the terms involved in one set of problems are meaningless because they are not required in dealing with another set of problems, is to settle from the beginning the nature and extent of philosophy, and that is itself a philosophical act which stands in need of justification.

That seems to me to be impossible, and it raises, of course, the question what one means by existence, and as to this, I think a subject named can never be significantly said to exist but only a subject described. The feeling is a little too simplified. However, I must say I see little resemblance between the real influence of those books on me and the mystic experience proper, so far, that is, as an outsider can obtain an idea of that experience.

I don’t think you’ve quite got my point about these historical characters — these unhistorical characters in history. No, but I think that the good effect would attest your veracity in describing your experience. It seems to me, if you will pardon my saying so, that besides your own logical system — what you call “modern” in opposition to antiquated logic a tendentious adjective — you maintain a philosophy which cannot be substantiated by logical analysis.