Foremost among our modal headaches is Anselm’s ontological argument. How does it fare under the Anselm and Actuality A. H. J. Lewis; Published and in “Anselm and Actuality” in these: I suggest that “actual” and its More precisely, the words Lewis has used to state “the indexical theory” are ambiguous . But that makes Lewis’s defense of a plurality of worlds incoherent. For there could be no Lewis says, we know that we are actual; skepticism about our own actuality is absurd. With this I agree. Lewis, David (). “Anselm and Actuality.
|Published (Last):||13 March 2018|
|PDF File Size:||16.65 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.69 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
But if any reasonable person must believe that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality, then surely it is the case that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality. Here, I shall give a brief presentation of the version of the argument which is developed by Anderson, and then make some comments elwis that version.
Anselm and Actuality – Oxford Scholarship
Many other objections to some ontological arguments have been proposed. Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. There is room for argument about this.
Chambers works with the analysis of Adams Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Leibniz argued that, since perfections are unanalysable, it is impossible to demonstrate that perfections are incompatible—and he concluded from this that all perfections can co-exist together in a single entity. Hence, God is existent, i.
And that is surely a bad result. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists —can be conceived. Any property entailed by—i. Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPaperswith links to its database.
Anselm and Actuality
God is a being which has every perfection. From 1, 2, 3 See Adams God exists in the understanding. Defence of modal ontological arguments, allegedly derived from Proslogion 3. Is the reductio argument supposed to tell us something about what even the Fool believes, or ought to believe? Robert Black – – Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 1: But the arguments themselves say nothing about the reasonableness of accepting the premisses.
Examples of all but ansselm last follow. Hence There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.
If a property is in the set, then the property of having that property necessarily is also in the set. Those who are disposed to think that theism is irrational need find nothing in ontological arguments to make them change their minds and those who are acttuality to think that theism is true should take no comfort from them either.
If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Hence, the existent perfect being is existent. Hence, the existent perfect ansflm who creates exactly n universes is existent. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.
Hence the being than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality. Other commentators claim that the main proof is in Prologion IIIand that the proof in Proslogion II is merely an inferior first attempt see, e. Of course, all of the above discussion is directed merely to the claim that ontological arguments are not dialectically efficacious—i.
Some commentators claim that the main proof is in Proslogion IIand that the rest of the work draws out corollaries of that proof see, e. It aneslm not easy to give a good characterisation of ontological arguments. Print Save Cite Email Share. Here is one translation of the crucial part of Proslogion II due to William Mann—1 ; alternative translations can be found in BarnesCampbellCharlesworthand elsewhere: Objections to ontological arguments take many forms.
Here is one translation of the crucial part of Proslogion II due ad William Mann—1 ; alternative translations can be found in BarnesCampbellCharlesworthand elsewhere:. Among other journal articles, perhaps the most interesting are Prusswhich provides a novel defence lewi the key possibility premise in modal ontological arguments, and Prusswhich kick-started recent discussion of higher-order ontological arguments.
History of Western Philosophy.
In our sample argument, the claim, that I conceive of an existent being than which no greater being can be conceived, admits of the two kinds of ansslm just distinguished. There are many kinds of parodies on Ontological Arguments. Moreover, an argument can be ambiguous between a range of readings, each of which belongs to different categories.
A being greater than God can be conceived. Sign in to use this feature. A significant proportion of papers in this collection take up technical questions about logics that support ontological derivations. Hence God does not exist.
Finally, the taxonomy can be further specialised: At most, the various axioms aanselm involve this concept can be taken to provide a partial implicit definition. Mark Owen Webb – – Philo 8 1: But, as just noted, there is no valid inference from this claim to the further claim that God exists.
No keywords specified fix it. Of course, this taxonomy is not exclusive: