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.
|Country:||Antigua & Barbuda|
|Published (Last):||11 February 2009|
|PDF File Size:||19.87 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.33 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
So there is a contradiction, and we can conclude that, in order to be reasonable, we must believe that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality. A is an essence of x if and only if for every property Bx has B necessarily if and only if A entails B Definition 3: No one who believes that that than which ansepm greater can be conceived exists in the understanding can reasonably believe that that than which no greater can anse,m conceived exists only in the understanding.
If a person can conceive of something, and that thing entails something else, then the person can also conceive of that other thing. There is no entity which possesses maximal greatness.
Trying to support most of these claims merely in order to beat up on ontological arguments is like using a steamroller to crack a nut in circumstances in which one is unsure that one can get the steamroller to move! To troubleshoot, please check our Ahselmand if you can’t find the answer there, please contact us.
Premise For any understandable being xand for any worlds w and vif x exists in wbut x does not exist in vthen the greatness of x in w exceeds the greatness of x in v. This point was argued in detail by Dana Scott, in lecture notes which circulated for many years and which were transcribed in Sobel and published in Sobel The merit of an achievement is the product of a its intrinsic quality, and b the ability of its creator.
Bibliography Primary Texts Anselm, St. Premise, to which even the Fool agrees. Classical, Early, and Medieval Plays and Playwrights: Here is a modest attempt to provide such an analysis: From 1 and 2. But that is absurd: This is true as a matter of definition. From 1 – 3. Objections to ontological arguments take many forms. These are arguments with premises which concern modal claims about God, i.
Of course, there will then be questions about whether the resulting arguments can possibly be valid—how could the commitments turn up in the conclusion if they are not there in the premises?
So, for example, the round square is round; the bald current King of France is bald; and so on. Is the reductio argument supposed to tell us something about what even the Fool believes, or ought to believe? Anselm in Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy.
God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any. Jasper Hopkins – – Philosophy Research Archives 9: What else might we say against it? And that is surely a bad result. On the one hand, on the reading which gives cancellation, the inference to the conclusion that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived is plainly invalid.
Actyality, there is a necessarily existent, necessarily omnipotent, necessarily omniscient, and necessarily perfectly good being namely, God.
From 2by a theorem about descriptions.
Some philosophers have denied the acceptability of the underlying modal logic. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. And certainly that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot be in the understanding alone. Setting aside the possibility that one might challenge this widely accepted modal principle, it seems that opponents of the argument are bound to challenge the acceptability of the premise.
Intimations of a defensible mereological ontological argument, actualitg one whose conclusion is not obviously endowed with religious significance.
Anselm and Actuality
In the example given earlier, the premises licence the claim aneslm, as a matter of definition, God possesses the perfection of existence. Here, I shall give a brief presentation of the version of the argument which is developed by Anderson, and then make some comments on that version.
Even if all of the kinds of arguments produced to date are pretty clearly unsuccessful—i. The most significant of these pieces is Millicanthe first article on ontological arguments in recent memory to appear in Mind.
Anselm and Actuality – Semantic Scholar
Here is one translation of the crucial part of Proslogion II due to William Mann—1 ; alternative translations can be found in BarnesCampbellCharlesworthand elsewhere:. Please, subscribe or login to access full text content. Thus if that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, then that than which a greater cannot be conceived is itself that than which a greater can be conceived.
Now, entertaining this idea or possessing this concept requires the entertainer or possessor to recognise certain relationships which hold between given properties and the idea or concept in question. Conflating the concept with its object, this gives us the belief that than which no greater can be conceived possesses the property of existing in the understanding.
Defence of modal ontological arguments, allegedly derived from Proslogion 3. However, it is unclear how that traditional characterisation should be improved upon. In the literature, there has been great resistance to the idea that the argument which Anselm gives is one which modern logicians would not hesitate to pronounce invalid.
Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being—namely, one who created everything while not existing.