>I am imperfect >I can conceptualize something that is

In this case you're imagining a hippogryph by assembling borrowed images, not conceptualizing it, whatever that word would mean for Descartes.

>>7991011
All things are related to perfection: in themselves, they are nearer or further away from perfection. However, in themselves, things are not nearer or further away for nearer from "hippogryph-hood".

Everything I see has some perfection or absence of perfection, yet, I conceptualise (think) perfection: this perfection must be inspired or in some way given by god.

>>7991050
The irony of Descartes argument is that perfection, or Godliness, is unknowable to the imperfect man. Therefore he cannot possibly point to a relation which he is unable to define.

He says in the fifth meditation that God's perfection would prevent him from deceiving. By what objective criteria is deception excluded from perfection? Did not God deceive Abraham when he commanded him to sacrifice Isaac?

>>7991078
*fourth meditation

>>7991078
I suppose it's proof coming from the fact that if we know imperfection then there must be perfection as well otherwise we would never be able to think imperfection, even if that perfection is not knowable as such. It's like the relation is deduced from knowing only one element because that element cannot exist on its own if I understood correctly.

As for the Abraham bit, that's the beauty of words. God wasn't "deceiving", he was "teaching by negative example" or something.

>>7991011

At least get the argument right.

>>7991050
>>>7991011 (OP)
>All things are related to perfection: in themselves, they are nearer or further away from perfection. However, in themselves, things are not nearer or further away for nearer from "hippogryph-hood".

What are you talking about, yes they are. In fact it's probably easier to plot a territory of relatedness-to-hippogryphs than a territory of perfection, because perfection is a very slippery concept.

>>7991011
As lacking as the argument is, he addressed the teenagers like yourself in the continuation of the argument.