#gaunilo

[alevelrs]

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument claims that God’s existence can be demonstrated simply through reasoning. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that explores the whole concept of existence. It is an a priori argument, in that it works from first principles, pure conceptual truth and definition in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God. It is also deductive, using logic rather than empirical evidence.

According to the ontological argument, everything (with the exception of God) exists in a contingent way; it depends upon other factors. Human beings are contingent beings because they would not exist if their parents didn’t exist before them – absolutely everything else exists contingently too. However, God is not a ‘thing’; He has not come about because of anything; there was no time when God didn’t exist. Some, such as Paul Tillich, argue ‘exists’ isn’t the right word to use of God at all.

Anselm and the ontological argument

Anselm starts by defining God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be thought’. God is understood to be the highest sum of all perfections, where absolutely nothing could ever surpass God in any way. He argued that of we have an idea of a God who is perfect in every way, where nothing could possibly be greater, then this God must exist in reality. This is because a God who just exists in our heads – something we imagined to be great but doesn’t actually exist – would be inferior to a real God, and because God cannot be inferior to anything, He must exist.

Analogies can be used to understand this point: what would be greater: a huge heap of cash that exists in your imagination, or the same heap of cash in real life? In Anselm’s understanding of God, no one could seriously argue that a non-existent God would surpass an existent God in greatness.

So, his first form of the ontological argument follows this line of argument:

God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.

A real, existent being would be greater than an imaginary, illusionary being.

Therefore, the concept of God is surpassed by an actual, existent God.

In the second form of his argument, very similar to the first, he argued that it was impossible for God not to exist, because contingent beings are inferior to beings with a necessary existence:

God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.

Because God is unsurpassable in every way. God must have necessary existence.

Therefore God exists – necessarily.

God must exist because a necessary being cannot fail to exist. According to Anselm, necessary existence is part of the definition of God – you cannot talk about a God who does not exist, because He would not be God.

Analytic and synthetic propositions

The ontological argument can be understood by drawing a distinction between two kinds of propositions.

An analytic proposition is true by definition, e.g. ‘bachelors are unmarried men’. This proposition doesn’t need to be tested, because it can be arrived at by deduction – the concept of being a bachelor involves the concept of being unmarried, and a man. Anselm, in his ontological argument, claims that the statement ‘God exists’ is analytic – the concept of God involves the concept of existence, and without existence, the concept of God wouldn’t exist.

A synthetic proposition adds something to our understanding, beyond the definition – we need more than deduction to know if it is true or not: experience. ‘The corner shop sells newspapers’ is a synthetic proposition, because the concept of corner shops doesn’t include the concept of selling newspapers – you would have to go and check to know the truth of the proposition.

Anselm argued that ‘God exists’ is an analytic a priori statement, making reference to Psalm 53:1: “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God” They are corrupt and their ways are vile.” He found it difficult to understand how anyone could have the concept of God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be thought’ without also realising that God must exist.

Gaunilo’s Criticisms of Anselm

Gaunilo was a Christian, but he thought Anselm’s argument was not logical. He claimed that these logical flaws would be made obvious if we replaced the idea of God in his argument with an island. We could imagine the most excellent Lost Island, and then, using Anselm’s logic, go on to say that for such an island to exist in our minds means that this is inferior to the same island existing in reality. It is truly the most excellent, it cannot have the inferiority that comes from it being a concept only, it must exist in reality. But clearly, there is no such island in reality, we cannot bring something into reality just by defining it as a superlative.

Anselm replied to this argument by saying that although Gaunilo was right in the case of an island, the same objection did not work when the ontological argument was used of God, because an island has a contingent existence whereas God has a necessary existence. The argument only works with God because of the uniqueness of God and how He exists.

Aquinas’s criticisms of Anselm

Thomas Aquinas argued that the existence of God could be demonstrated through a posteriori arguments, but not through a priori reasoning alone. One of his points was that God’s existence cannot be self-evident. He said that if we take a statement such as ‘Truth does not exist’, it in nonsensical because no one can accept the truth of ‘truth does not exist’ unless truth actually does exist. It is impossible to have a mental concept of the non-existence of truth because it is a contradiction in terms. However, it is not impossible to have a mental concept of the non-existence of God, because people quite clearly imagine it. If we can imagine a state of godlessness, then it cannot be a contradiction in terms, despite Anselm’s claims.

Aquinas also acknowledged that God will always remain unknowable to the finite human mind, questioning whether everyone would accept Anselm’s definition of God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be thought’. Aquinas argued that we do not all share an understanding of what God is, and rejects the premise of Anselm’s argument. He was aware of the limitations of the human mind to comprehend the nature of God and emphasised that, at least until after death, we have to accept that God is mysterious and beyond human comprehension.

Descartes’s view of the ontological argument

Descartes believed that there are some concepts that are innate and universally shared by all of humanity, such as equality, cause, shape and number, as well as an understanding of what God is. We understand God to be the supremely perfect being, with every perfection as his attributes, ‘perfection’ meaning the traditional attributes of God such as omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

He used the analogies of a mountain and of a triangle to explain. He claimed that existence is part of the essence of God, just as three angles adding up to 180 degrees are part of the essence of a triangle, and a valley is part of the essence of a mountain. He recognised that these analogies have their limitations, as although we may not be able to think of a mountain without a valley, the mountain-and-valley combination in our imaginations doesn’t necessarily exist in real life. However, for God it is different because his nature involves perfections rather than angles or valleys,  and for Descartes, existence is a perfection.

Because God has all the perfections, and existence is a perfection, God therefore exists. And because God is perfect, he must be unchanging, so he must always have existed and will always continue to exist for eternity.

Kant’s critique of ontological arguments

Kant’s major criticism of Descartes’s argument was ‘existence is not a predicate’ – in other words, existence is not a characteristic or attribute of something. Predicates describe what that thing is like – tall, green, round etc, but ‘existence’, Kant argued, is not the same as a predicate as it doesn’t tell us anything about the object that would help us to identify it in any way. When we say something ‘exists’, we are not saying that it has a certain characteristic, but rather that this concept, with all its characteristics has been ‘actualised’ or ‘exemplified’. His point is that when we are thinking of God, whether through Descartes or Anselm’s arguments, we are thinking of a concept, and whether that concept is actualised in the real world is an issue that cannot be resolved by simply adding ‘existence’ to the different predicates. We can predicate of a triangle that it has three sides, and that its angles add up to 180 degrees, but we would have to investigate further to find out whether the triangle we are picturing in our minds has been actualised.

He used the example of a hundred Prussian dollars to illustrate how existence is not a predicate. Adding ‘exists’ to the idea of God, as a predicate, doesn’t add anything new to what we understand by God, but is just a comment on whether he exists. In the same way, an imaginary $100 is not ‘added to’ if we substitute it for a real $100 – we are talking about the same amount of money either way.

Some, such as Norman Malcolm may argue against this by saying that existence is usually not a characteristic that helps us distinguish between one thing and another and so usually is not a predicate, but necessary existence is a characteristic that does draw a distinction between God and everything else, just like God’s other characteristics of omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience. However, this makes the argument circular: we have to accept that God exists necessarily to come to the conclusion that God exists necessarily.

Bertrand Russell on the ontological argument

He criticised it by asking us to consider the statement ‘the present King of France is bald’. This statement is not true, but that doesn’t mean that therefore the statement ‘the present King of France is not bald’ is true, because there is no present King of France. Our use of words and the way we apply predicates, such as bald and not bald, is not enough to demonstrate that something exists, and when we apply predicates to something whose existence is a matter of uncertainty, we cannot expect the normal rules of linguistic logic to apply.

Discussion points

A priori arguments can be persuasive as they lead us to a certain truth, whilst a posteriori arguments can only lead to probabilities.

He ontological argument can seem like an intellectual puzzle made for elite, educated people meaning it is quite inaccessible. People often want to see evidence for themselves using their own senses, rather than rely on the conceptual reasoning of philosophers.

The ontological argument is not convincing enough to make someone who doesn’t believe in God change their mind, BUT Anselm did not set out to convert non-believers, he was simply helping those who already held a belief to gain a deeper understanding of His uniqueness and greatness. Religious belief is much more than just an intellectual acceptance of certain assertions, but involves, emotions, intuitions and commitment. It does not fall simply on the strength of a logical argument.

Faith in God seems to demand an element of uncertainty, and a willingness to take risks. God may need to remain partially hidden from the world to maintain epistemic distance, meaning the world should remain ‘religiously ambiguous’ so people have a choice. Only with this epistemic distance is it possible for humans to have a genuinely free will to exercise faith – if God’s existence were undeniable, faith would mean nothing.

[gwenlena]

someone wrote an essay in a christian philosophy journal misrepresenting kant so badly and i really need to write a rebuttal because hes so so wrong but a. i dont think anyone cares about what he wrote like at all and b. what if he writes a rebuttal to me and because hes like an old man and im an undergrad everyone sides with him and my only philosophical contribution ever is being owned by someone who doesnt even have the right opinions about kant

[hacvek]

@wo-chien-fan I did finally come across your initial objection made by other people (Thomists, of all people). Which seemed strange to me to have taken so long to find it, since your initial objection appeared both intuitive and not easily rebutted, while the commonest arguments against the OA are either too philosophically sophisticated for the layman (Kant) or obviously and intuitively wrong (Gaunilo). I was initially playing devil's advocate! Wondering what you make of this supposed rebuttal to the rebuttal (though it does make reference to other parts of the book):

In Thomist circles one often encounters some such formulation as the following: The idea of God, the infinitely perfect being, does include existence, but only ideal, not real, existence. Therefore, it would be a contradiction if I were to think the infinitely perfect being without thinking it as existent, because I would be affirming and denying existence in the same order (Ordnung); however, a contradiction is not present if I attribute ideal existence to the most perfect being, while leaving the question open whether it exists in ontological reality. (Lehmen, Lebrbuch der Philosophie, Freiburg, 1901, BIL, p. 547, quoted in Esser— see Bibliography.) This way of talking makes me wonder how stupid I perhaps am, for I can make no clear sense at all out of what is said. What is ‘ideal existence’? Merely that something is thought to exist? (For a legitimate distinction between conceptual and real existence in terms of the contrast between the that and the how of actualization, see Part One, Sec. 18.) But then a necessity to think infinite perfection as (ideally) existing is the necessity to think that it is thought to be thought to exist—and so on. And besides, the defect with which Anselm’s second Argument (against which Esser quotes the above passage) shows that Greatness cannot be combined is the conceivability of failing to have real existence. A being whose not really existing is conceivable is inferior to one whose not really existing is inconceivable. Therefore it is precisely real existence which must be taken as inseparable from Greatness. What special merit would there be in ideally existing necessarily while really existing contingently? And if one can only think divinity as really existing then atheism is not thinkable, and only a positivist can reject the conclusion of the Argument. Is that what Lehmen and Esser are trying to say? Then let them for pity’s sake say it. For it is painful to be unable to find sense in what must seem sensible to the many who write in this way. When it is suggested, as by Esser (p. 36), that while we must think God as existent, still we may also think that he perhaps does not exist ‘in the real order’, I derive from such formulations only this: we must think divinity as existent, but we may also think the proposition, ‘divinity may not exist’. Once more my intelligence fails to arrive at a coherent meaning. Is it our old friend, ‘God exists necessarily if he exists at all’? This seems implied by Esser (p. 35). As I have argued in various places, this expression also means nothing clear and consistent. If it only means, God either fails to exist or else exists eternally and without dependence upon any other existent, then I think (a) it misuses ‘necessarily’, and (b) it implies a radically unintelligibile form of contingency, ie., that something is but might not have been, yet no cause enabled it to be or furnished its real possibility. To be able not to exist yet to owe one’s existence to no actual condition is a combination of ideas that gives me for one ‘logical seasickness’. In addition I have given many reasons for denying that the ‘nonexistence’ of something is conceivable unless the something is competitive, partly exclusive, in its essential nature, so that another thing could exist in its place. But there is no ‘place’ of God which another thing could occupy instead of Him. I deny that an argument can be refuted by formulations so full of paradoxes as those just considered.

Charles Hartshorne, Anselm's Discovery: A Re-examination of the Ontological Proof for God's Existence Argument, pg. 162-4. The book is free online; the work by Esser he refers to seems to be Matthias Esser, Der ontologische Gottesbeweis und seine Geschichte (1905).

[rw7771]

Arguments for the existence of God

a philosophy lesson

The Ontological Argument:

The Ontological Argument, initially proposed by St. Anselm and Avicenna in the 11th Century, attempts to prove the existence of God through a priori abstract reasoning alone. It argues that part of what we mean when we speak of “God” is “perfect being”, or one of whom nothing greater can be conceived, and that is essentially what the word “God” means. A God that exists, of course, is better than a God that doesn’t, so to speak of God as a perfect being is therefore necessary to imply that he exists. So God’s existence is implied by the very concept of God, and when we speak of “God” we cannot but speak of a being that exists. By this argument, to say that God does not exist is a contradiction in terms.

The argument is certainly ingenious, but has the appearance of a linguistic trick. The same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all (for example, Anselm's contemporary, the monk Gaunilo, used it to show that a perfect island must exist). Immanuel Kant argued against the ontological argument on the grounds that existence is not a property of objects but a property of concepts, and that, whatever ideas may participate in a given concept, it is a further question whether that concept is instantiated.

The Cosmological Argument:

The Cosmological Argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe implies the existence of a being that brought it into existence (and keeps it in existence). In essence, the argument is that everything that moves is moved by something else; an infinite regress (that is, going back through a chain of movers forever) is impossible; and therefore there must exist a first mover (i.e. God). It comes in two forms, modal (having to do with possibility), and temporal (having to do with time):

The Modal Cosmological Argument:

This argument, also known as the Argument from Contingency, suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. it is contingent, as opposed to necessary), we then need some explanation of why it does exist. Wherever there are two possibilities, something must determine which of those possibilities is realized. Therefore, as the universe is contingent, there must be some reason for its existence, i.e. it must have a cause. In fact, the only kind of being whose existence requires no explanation is a necessary being, a being that could not have failed to exist. The ultimate cause of everything must therefore be a necessary being, such as God.

Critics of the argument from contingency have sometimes questioned whether the universe is in fact contingent, and why God should be considered a necessary being (simply asking "Does God have a cause of his existence?” raises as many problems as the cosmological argument solves). Also, even if God is thought not to have, or not to need, a cause of his existence, then his existence would be a counter-example to the initial premise that everything that exists has a cause of its existence).

The Temporal Cosmological Argument:

This argument, also known as the Kalam Argument for the medieval Muslim school of philosophy of al-Kindi (801 - 873) and al-Ghazali (1058 - 1111) which first proposed it, argues that all indications are that there is a point in time at which the universe began to exist, (a universe stretching back in time into infinity being both philosophically and scientifically problematic), and that this beginning must either have been caused or uncaused. The idea of an uncaused event is absurd, because nothing comes from nothing. The universe must therefore have been brought into existence by something outside it, which can be called "God".

The argument rests on the somewhat controversial claim that the universe has a beginning in time, but also does not explain why there could not be more than one first cause/mover, or why the chain could not lead back to several ultimate causes, each somehow outside the universe (potentially leading to several different Gods).

The Teleological Argument:

The Teleological Argument (also known as the Argument from Design or Intelligent Design) suggests that the order in the world implies a being that created it with a specific purpose (the creation of life) in mind. The universe is an astoundingly complex but highly ordered system, and the world is fine-tuned to provide exactly the right conditions for the development and sustenance of life. To say that the universe is so ordered by chance is therefore unsatisfactory as an explanation of the appearance of design around us. St Thomas Aquinas was the most famous subscriber to this argument, but the most cited statement of the argument is that of William Paley (1743 - 1805), who likened the universe to a watch, with many ordered parts working in harmony to further some purpose.

Evolutionary theory, however, can explain the appearance of biological design, even if not the laws of nature. David Hume counter-argued that we know that man-made structures were designed because we have seen them being built, but how can we be sure that the analogy holds? He also pointed out that certain events in the world (e.g. natural disasters) suggest that God didn't do a very good job of designing the universe, which belies the concept of a perfect being. Others, who reject the argument in its entirety, dispute whether the order and complexity in the universe does in fact constitute design. The mere fact that it something is enormously improbable does not by itself give us reason to conclude that it occurred by design. Also, the idea that our universe is but one material universe in a "multiverse" in which all possible material universes are ultimately realized, suggests that there is nothing particularly suspicious about the fact that at least one of them is a fine-tuned universe.

The Moral Argument:

The Moral Argument argues that the existence or nature of morality implies the existence of God. Three forms of moral argument are distinguished, formal, perfectionist and Kantian:

The Formal Moral Argument:

This argument suggests that the form of morality implies that it has a divine origin. If morality consists of an ultimately authoritative set of commands, where can these commands have come from but a commander that has ultimate authority (namely God)?

It begs the question, however, as to whether morality is in fact ultimately authoritative, and whether morals actually exist or have meaning independently of us or whether there are alternative explanations for the existence of morals.

The Perfectionist Moral Argument:

This argument suggests that morality requires perfection of us, but we are not in fact perfect. However, although we cannot achieve moral perfection by our own strength, we can do so with God’s help, which implies the existence of God. The gap between our moral duties and what we are capable of doing therefore implies the existence of a God, as the only way to resolve this paradox.

Immanuel Kant, however, argues that “ought” implies “can”, so that if we have an obligation to do a thing then it logically follows that we are able to do it, and morality cannot require of us more than we are able to give. Or it can also be argued that morality is just a guide and does not actually require perfection of us, and that it is in fact acceptable to fall short of the moral standard.

The Kantian Moral Argument:

This argument, proposed by Immanuel Kant, presupposes that moral behavior is rational and that we should have good reason to behave morally. Looking around the world, though, we see that in many cases immoral behavior does profit more than moral behavior, and that life is not fair. Kant therefore argued that moral behavior will only be rational is there is more than just this life, if justice is administered in the next life.

However, this does not fully answer why should it have to be God in particular that brings about the higher good, nor why something should necessarily have to be, just because we decide it both ought and can.

The Religious Experience Argument:

The Religious Experience Argument posits that one can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him. The fact that there are many people who testify to having had such experiences constitutes at least indirect evidence of God’s existence, even to those who have not had such experiences themselves.

Some, though, argue that religious experiences involve imagination rather than perception, and there is always the possibility of fabricating artificial experiences of God, or that the experiences are not religious but merely interpreted that way by religious people. Also, adherents of all religions (mutually inconsistent and conflicting) claim to have had experiences that validate those religions, and if not all of these appeals are valid then none can be. In addition, why do we not all have religious experiences? Yet another counter-argument is the skeptical idea that all experiences (including religious experiences) are subjective, and no matter how one person perceives the world to be, there are any number of ways that it could be. Barely tangible religious experiences are by their nature even more uncertain than our familiar and lucid experiences of the external world, which are themselves unreliable.

The Miracles Argument:

The Argument from Miracles argues that the occurrence of miracles (which involve the suspension of the natural operation of the universe as some supernatural event occurs), presupposes the existence of some supernatural being. If the Bible is to be believed, then, such miracles demonstrate both the existence of God and the truth of Christianity.

However, the essential implicit assumption in this argument is "if the Bible is to be believed", which is by no means a given. In addition, according to David Hume, no matter how strong the evidence for a specific miracle may be, it will always be more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it (given that there are two factors to assess in deciding whether to believe any given piece of testimony: the reliability of the witness, and the probability of that to which they testify).

Pascal’s Wager:

Blaise Pascal argued for belief in God based not on an appeal to evidence that God exists, but rather that it is in our interests to believe in God and it is therefore rational for us to do so: If we believe in God, then if he exists we will receive an infinite reward in heaven, while if he does not then we have lost little or nothing. Conversely, if we do not believe in God, then if he exists we will receive an infinite punishment in hell, while if he does not then we will have gained little or nothing. "Either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or losing little or nothing" is clearly preferable to "either receiving an infinite punishment in hell or gaining little or nothing", so it is rational to believe in God, even if there is no evidence that he exists.

However, this only works if the only possible criterion for entrance into heaven is belief in the Christian God and the only possible criterion for entrance into hell is disbelief in the Christian God. Also, if one argues that the probability that God exists (and therefore of either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or of receiving an infinite punishment in hell) is so small that these possible outcomes of belief or disbelief can be discounted, then Atheism is the rational course of action as it is better to gain little or nothing than it is to lose little or nothing. Thirdly, Pascal’s Wager asks us to believe without reason, whereas in practice one requires evidence for the truth of a belief.

[ramblingsofamuskrat]

Critically compare Plato’s form of the good with Aristotle’s prime mover. ‘Aristotelian teleology is outdated’ – Discuss. Critically compare Plato’s hierarchy of the forms with Aristotle’s four causes.

‘Discussion of the mind-body distinction is a category error’ – Critically assess this view.Is the concept of the soul best understood metaphorically or as a reality?Assess the philosophical language of soul, mind and body in Plato and Aristotle’s work.‘The soul is the way the body behaves and lives’ – Discuss.Analyse the metaphysics of consciousness.

Is a posteriori a more successful form of argument than a priori?Is God’s existence better proven by a priori or a posteriori argument?‘A priori argument is stronger than a posteriori’ – Discuss.Assess Aquinas’ 5th way“The teleological argument fails due to the challenge of evolution” – Discuss.Does evolution disprove the teleological argument?

Is a posteriori a more successful form of argument than a priori? ‘A priori argument is stronger than a posteriori’ – Discuss. Assess Gaunilo’s criticisms of the ontological argument. Assess Kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument

Are corporate religious experiences more reliable than individual experiences? How successful are the views and main conclusions of William James? Does the influence religious experiences have show they have a supernatural source? ‘Conversion experiences are more reliable than mystical experiences’ – How far do you agree?

Is the logical or evidential problem of evil the greater challenge to belief?Is it easier to show that God’s existence lacks evidence than that it is logically impossible?‘Augustine solves the logical problem of evil’ – DiscussDoes Augustine’s theodicy succeed against the evidential problem of evil?‘Hick cannot solve the evidential problem of evil’ – How far do you agree?How successfully can the evidental problem of evil be addressed through the explanation of soul-making?

Assess Anselm’s four-dimensionalist approach. Does Anselm’s four-dimensionalist approach adequately explain divine action in time? Evaluate Boethius’ view of divine action and time. Critically compare Anselm with Swinburne on God’s relationship with time. “It is not necessary to resolve the apparent conflicts between divine attributes” – Discuss.

Does Aquinas’ analogical approach support effective expression of language about God? Is symbolic religious language comprehensible?

Assess Mitchell’s contribution to the falsification symposiumIs religious language a form of life?To what extent is Aquinas’ analogical view of religious language valuable in the philosophy of religion.Should non-cognitive approaches influence interpretation of religious texts?

Where are you pulling these ideas from?!?! Genuinely...

[mysticsapphicsblog]

can't remember for the life of me his name but the medieval theologian who said if u can imagine a concept, it can exist

thanks to u, unicorns exist now

[bookloversofbath]

St. Anselm’s Proslogion: With a Reply on Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilo and the Author’s Reply to Gaunilo :: Gaunilo

St. Anselm’s Proslogion: With a Reply on Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilo and the Author’s Reply to Gaunilo :: Gaunilo

St. Anselms Proslogion: With a Reply on Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilo and the Authors Reply to Gaunilo :: Gaunilo soon to be presented for sale on the outstanding BookLovers of Bath web site! Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965, Hardback in dust wrapper. >From the cover: St. Anselms Proslogion, though almost nine hundred years old, still exacts the interest of philosophers and theologians, for even if…

[bythefiraplace]

philosophy 101: a documentation of sorts

a week ago, I jumped into a little rabbithole called philosophy. alas, I had no idea it was going to continue for more than a week, but now that we're 4 days further than the originally intended 7 I've found it most sensible to make a side tumblr to document and chronicle my self-learning progress !!

Here are my sources of learning (to be updated as the texts are basically pulled directly from the recommendations and texts from the lecture):

Lecture

Introduction to Philosophy by Jack Sanders

Texts

Classics of Western Philosophy 8th Ed. by Steven M. Cahn (2012)

Letter From Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr.

Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the Present 5th Ed. by William & Alan Ebenstein

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Course Hero: Study Guide

Jeff Speaks (nd.edu) Philosophy Courses

Works of St. Anselm, Translated by Sidney Norton Deane (2018)

In behalf of the fool by Gaunilo & Anselm's reply

Last Updated: 2023-03-13

[o-craven-canto]

“See here. In the world, there are morons, idiots, fools, and lunatics.”

“Is anyone left out?”

“Yes, such as the two of us. Or at least, to be polite, me. But, really, anyone belongs to one of these groups. Each of us is, once in a while, a moron, an idiot, a fool, or a lunatic. Let’s say the ideal person is the one who mixes in a reasonable proportion these components. [...] Don’t take my theory for spun gold. I’m not setting the universe in place; I’m just saying what is a lunatic to a publishing house. [...] The moron can’t talk or move at all; he lacks coordination. He enters a revolving door the wrong way.”

“How?”

“He can; that’s what makes him a moron. We don’t care about him; you can recognize him immediately, and he does not come to us to publish a book. Let’s pass over.”

“Let’s.”

“Idiocy is more complex. It’s social behavior. The idiot speaks outside the glass.” [...] He pointed at the table outside his glass. “He would speak of what’s inside the glass, but as it is he speaks outside of it. In common terms, if you will, he does faux pas, the one who asks how’s your wife doing to the guy whose wife just left him. [...] He makes everyone awkward, but gives them something to talk about. At his best, he’s a diplomat, he draws attention from someone else’s faux pas. But we don’t care, he’s not creative, he’s derivative, so he doesn’t submit manuscripts to publishers. The idiot doesn’t say that cats bark, he talks about cats when others are talking about dogs. He gets conversation wrong, and when he does it properly, it’s sublime. [...] The idiot is Joachim Murat, who reviews his officers, and sees one, covered in medals, from Martinique. ‘Vous êtes nègre?’ [You’re a black man, aren’t you?] he asks. And that one: ‘Oui mon général! [Yes, my general!] And Murat: ‘Bravò, bravò, continuez!’ [Good, good, keep it up!] And so on. Do you follow? Excuse me if I drink another one, I’m celebrating a momentous decision: I’ve stopped drinking. Say nothing, you’ll make me feel guilty.”

“What about fools?”

“Ah. The fool is not wrong in behavior, but in reasoning. He’s one to say that all dogs are pets, and all dogs bark, but cats are pets as well, and therefore bark. Or that all Athenians are mortal, all people from Piraeus are mortal, therefore all people from Piraeus are Athenians.”

“Which is true.”

“Yes, but by chance. A fool may say the right thing, but for the wrong reason.”

“We can say wrong things, but at least let the reason be right.”

“By God, yes. Otherwise, why bother being rational animals? [...] The fool is subtle. You can recognize at once an idiot (let alone a moron), but the fool reasons almost as you do, except for a minuscule deviation. He’s a master of paradox. Many books by fools are published, because they are convincing at first sight. A publisher can’t be expected to recognize fools. Scientific academies don’t, why should publishers?”

“Philosophy doesn’t. Saint Anselm’s ontological argument is foolish. God must exist because I can think of him as the being with all perfections, including existence. He confuses existence in thought with existence in reality.”

“Sure, but the refutation by Gaunilo is foolish as well: I can think of an island in the sea even if it’s not there. He confuses thought of contingence with thought of necessity.”

“A duel of fools.”

“Of course, and God laughs himself silly. He made himself unthinkable just to prove that Anselm and Gaunilo were fools. What a sublime purpose for creation!” [...]

“How deep. It’s two AM, the bar’s about to close, and we’re still missing lunatics.”

“Here they are. You can recognize the lunatic: he’s a fool with no craft. The fool tries to prove his point, his logic is twisted but it’s there. The lunatic doesn’t bother to have a logic, he proceeds by short-circuits. To him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic has an obsession, and to confirm it everything goes. You can recognize the lunatic from the freedom he takes from the duty to find evidence, from his penchant for enlightenment. And this may seem strange to you, but sooner or later the lunatic mentions the Knights Templar.”

-- Umberto Eco, Foucault’s Pendulum (1988), chapter 10

[troybeecham]

Today the Church remembers St. Anselm of Canterbury.

Ora pro nobis.

Saint Anselm of Canterbury, (born AD 1033/34, Aosta, Lombardy—died April 21, 1109, possibly at Canterbury, Kent, England) was annItalian-born theologian and philosopher, known as the father of Scholasticism, a philosophical school of thought that dominated the Middle Ages. He was recognized in modern times as the originator of the ontological argument for the existence of God (based on the idea of an absolutely perfect being, the fact of the idea being in itself a demonstration of existence) and the satisfaction theory of the atonement or redemption (based on the feudal theory of making satisfaction or recompense according to the status of a person against whom an offense has been committed, the infinite God being the offended party and humanity the offender). There is incomplete evidence that he was canonized in 1163, though some scholars contend that he was canonized by Pope Alexander VI in 1494.

Early Life And Career

Anselm was born in the Piedmont region of northwestern Italy. His birthplace, Aosta, was a town of strategic importance in Roman imperial and in medieval times, because it stood at the juncture of the Great and Little St. Bernard routes. His mother, Ermenberga, belonged to a noble Burgundian family and possessed considerable property. His father, Gondolfo, was a Lombard nobleman who intended that Anselm would make a career of politics and did not approve of his early decision to enter the monastic life. Anselm received an excellent classical education and was considered one of the better Latinists of his day. His early education impressed on him the need to be precise in his use of words, and his writings became known for their clarity.

In 1057 Anselm left Aosta to enter the Benedictine monastery at Bec (located between Rouen and Lisieux in Normandy, France), because he wanted to study under the monastery’s renowned prior, Lanfranc. While on his way to Bec, he learned that Lanfranc was in Rome, so he spent some time at Lyon, Cluny, and Avranches before entering the monastery in 1060. In 1060 or 1061 he took his monastic vows. Because of Anselm’s reputation for great intellectual ability and sincere piety, he was elected prior of the monastery after Lanfranc became abbot of Caen in 1063. In 1078 he became abbot of Bec.

In the previous year (1077), Anselm had written the Monologion (“Monologue”) at the request of some of his fellow monks. A theological treatise, the Monologion was both apologetic and religious in intent. It attempted to demonstrate the existence and attributes of God by an appeal to reason alone rather than by the customary appeal to authorities favoured by earlier medieval thinkers. Moving from an analysis of the inequalities of various aspects of perfection, such as justice, wisdom, and power, Anselm argued for an absolute norm that is everywhere at all times, above both time and space, a norm that can be comprehended by the human mind. Anselm asserted that that norm is God, the absolute, ultimate, and integrating standard of perfection.

Under Anselm, Bec became a centre of monastic learning and some theological questioning. Lanfranc had been a renowned theologian, but Anselm surpassed him. He continued his efforts to answer satisfactorily questions concerning the nature and existence of God. His Proslogion (“Address,” or “Allocution”), originally titled Fides quaerens intellectum (“Faith Seeking Understanding”), established the ontological argument for the existence of God. In it he claimed that even a fool has an idea of a being greater than which no other being can be conceived to exist. Such a being, he argued, must really exist, for the very idea of such a being implies its existence.

Anselm’s ontological argument was challenged by a contemporary monk, Gaunilo of Marmoutier, in the Liber pro insipiente, or “Book in Behalf of the Fool Who Says in His Heart There Is No God.” Gaunilo denied that an idea of a being includes existence in the objective order and that a direct intuition of God necessarily includes God’s existence. Anselm wrote in reply his Liber apologeticus contra Gaunilonem (“Book [of] Defense Against Gaunilo”), which was a repetition of the ontological argument of the Proslogion. The ontological argument was accepted in different forms by René Descartes and Benedict de Spinoza, though it was rejected by Immanuel Kant.

Appointment As Archbishop Of Canterbury

William the Conqueror, who had established Norman overlordship of England in 1066, was a benefactor of the monastery at Bec, and lands in both England and Normandy were granted to Bec. Anselm made three visits to England to view these lands. During one of those visits, while Anselm was founding a priory at Chester, William II Rufus, the son and successor of William the Conqueror, named him archbishop of Canterbury (March 1093). The see had been kept vacant since the death of Lanfranc in 1089, during which period the king had confiscated its revenues and pillaged its lands.

Anselm accepted the position somewhat reluctantly but with an intention of reforming the English Church. He refused to be consecrated as archbishop until William restored the lands to Canterbury and acknowledged Urban II as the rightful pope against the antipope Clement III. In fear of death from an illness, William agreed to the conditions, and Anselm was consecrated on December 4, 1093. When William recovered, however, he demanded from the new archbishop a sum of money, which Anselm refused to pay lest it look like simony (payment for an ecclesiastical position). In response to Anselm’s refusal, William refused to allow Anselm to go to Rome to receive the pallium—a mantle, the symbol of papal approval of his archiepiscopal appointment—from Urban II, lest this be taken as an implied royal recognition of Urban. In claiming that the king had no right to interfere in what was essentially an ecclesiastical matter, Anselm became a major figure in the Investiture Controversy—a conflict over the question of whether a secular ruler (e.g., emperor or king) or the pope had the primary right to invest an ecclesiastical authority, such as a bishop, with the symbols of his office.

The controversy continued for two years. On March 11, 1095, the English bishops, at the Synod of Rockingham, sided with the king against Anselm. When the papal legate brought the pallium from Rome, Anselm refused to accept it from William, since it would then appear that he owed his spiritual and ecclesiastical authority to the king. William permitted Anselm to leave for Rome, but on his departure he seized the lands of Canterbury.

Anselm attended the Council of Bari (Italy) in 1098 and presented his grievances against the king to Urban II. He took an active part in the sessions, defending the doctrine of the Filioque (“and from the Son”) clause in the Nicene Creed against the Greek church, which had been in schism with the Western church since 1054. The Filioque clause, added to the Western version of the Creed, indicated that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and Son. The Greek church rejected the Filioque clause as a later addition. The Council also reapproved earlier decrees against investiture of ecclesiastics by lay officials.

The Satisfaction Theory Of Redemption

When Anselm left England, he had taken with him an incomplete manuscript of his work Cur Deus homo? (“Why Did God Become Man?”). After the Council of Bari, he withdrew to the village of Liberi, near Capua, and completed the manuscript in 1099. This work became the classic treatment of the satisfaction theory of redemption. According to this theory, which is based upon the feudal structure of society, finite humanity has committed a crime (sin) against infinite God. In feudal society, an offender was required to make recompense, or satisfaction, to the one offended according to that person’s status. Thus, a crime against a king would require more satisfaction than a crime against a baron or a serf. According to this way of thinking, finite humanity, which could never make satisfaction to the infinite God, could expect only eternal death. The instrument for bringing humans back into a right relationship with God, therefore, had to be the God-human (Christ), by whose infinite merits humanity is purified in an act of cooperative re-creation. Anselm rejected the view that humanity, through its sin, owes a debt to the Devil and placed the essence of redemption in individual union with Christ in the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper), to which the sacrament of baptism (by which a person is incorporated into the church) opens the way.

After completing Cur Deus homo? Anselm attended a council at the Lateran (papal palace) in Rome at Easter 1099. One year later William Rufus died in a hunting accident under suspicious circumstances, and his brother Henry I seized the English throne. In order to gain ecclesiastical support, he sought for and secured the backing of Anselm, who returned to England. Anselm soon broke with the king, however, when Henry insisted on his right to invest ecclesiastics with the spiritual symbols of their office. Three times the king sought an exemption, and each time the pope refused. During this controversy, Anselm was in exile, from April 1103 to August 1106. At the Synod of Westminster (1107), the dispute was settled. The king renounced investiture of bishops and abbots with the ring and crosier (staff), the symbols of their office. He demanded, however, that they do homage to him prior to consecration. The Westminster Agreement was a model for the Concordat of Worms (1122), which settled for a time the lay-investiture controversy in the Holy Roman Empire.

Anselm spent the last two years of his life in peace. In 1163, with new canons requiring approvals for canonization (official recognition of persons as saints), Archbishop Thomas Becket of Canterbury (1118?–70) referred Anselm’s cause to Rome. It is possible that Anselm was canonized at this time, for the Canterbury records for 1170 make frequent mention of the pilgrimages to his new shrine in the cathedral. For several centuries after his death, he was venerated locally. Clement XI (pope from 1700 to 1721) declared Anselm a Doctor (teacher) of the Church in 1720.

O God, by your Holy Spirit you give to some the word of wisdom, to others the word of knowledge, and to others the word of faith: We praise your Name for the gifts of grace manifested in your servant Anselm, and we pray that your Church may never be destitute of such gifts; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

[pepina2]

I’d just liked to be worshipped the way Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, Plato, Swinburne, Gaunilo, Augustine, Fletcher, etc. are by philosophy teachers.

[afutureworththinkingabout]

Text and Audio of 'Are You Being Watched? Simulated Universe Theory in "Person of Interest"'

(Direct Link to the Mp3)

This is the recording and the text of my presentation from 2017’s Southwest Popular/American Culture Association Conference in Albuquerque, ‘Are You Being Watched? Simulated Universe Theory in “Person of Interest.”‘

This essay is something of a project of expansion and refinement of my previous essay “Labouring in the Liquid Light of Leviathan,” considering the Roko’s Basilisk thought experiment. Much of the expansion comes from considering the nature of simulation, memory, and identity within Jonathan Nolan’s TV series, Person of Interest. As such, it does contain what might be considered spoilers for the series, as well as for his most recent follow-up, Westworld.

Use your discretion to figure out how you feel about that.

Read the rest of Text and Audio of ‘Are You Being Watched? Simulated Universe Theory in “Person of Interest”‘ at A Future Worth Thinking About

[heturnedleft]

Anselm and Gaunilo

Anselm is a great pain both in the head and in the ass. In responding to him, Gaunilo became a pain. And when I have analyzed their conversation, my analysis will be a pain. I not only have to read their spaghetti, but write my own spaghetti, in a way that gives the appearance of being coherent. FML.

[you-just-said-that]

정반대로 나는 현실 세계로부터 얻은 자료를 단 하나도 제시하지 않은 채 그런 중요한 결론에 도달하는 모든 추론들에 대해 자동적으로 깊은 회의를 느낄 것이다. 아마 그것은 내가 철학자라기보다는 과학자라는 점을 시사할 수도 있다. 수세기 동안 철학자들은 찬반 양쪽으로 갈려서 존재론적 논증을 진정으로 진지하게 고찰해왔다. 무신론자인 철학자 J. L. 매키는 《유신론의 기적》에서 아주 명쾌한 논의를 펼친다. 내가 “철학자는 상식을 답으로 받아들이지 않는 사람이라고 정의할 수 있다”라고 말하는 것은 찬사다. 존재론적 논증을 가장 결정적으로 논박한 공로는 철학자 데이비드 흄(David Hume :  1711~1776)과 이마누엘 칸트(Immanuel Kant : 1724~1804)에게 돌아간다. 칸트는 안셀무스가 사람들을 속이기 위해서 소매 속에 숨긴 카드가 ‘존재’가 비존재보다 ‘완벽하다’는 모호한 가정임을 간파했다. 미국 철학자 노먼 맬컴은 그것을 이렇게 표현한다. “존재가 완성된 것이라는 교리는 몹시 기이하다. 내 미래의 집이 단열이 안 되는 것보다는 단열이 되는 것이 더 좋을 것이라고 말한다면 그것은 참이고 수긍이 간다. 하지만 집이 존재하지 않는 것보다 존재하는 것이 더 나을 것이라는 말은 도대체 무슨 의미가 있단 말인가?” 오스트레일리아의 철학자 더글러스 개스킹은 비꼬듯이 ‘신이 존재하지 않는다는 증명’ (안셀무스의 동시대인인 가우닐로[Gaunilo]도 비슷한 귀류법을 펼친 바 있다)을 통해 요점을 명확히 보여주었다./ 1. 세계 창조는 상상할 수 있는 가장 경이로운 업적이다. 2. 그 업적의 가치는 (a) 고유의 특질과 (b) 창조자의 능력의 산물이다. 3. 창조자가 무능력할수록(또는 조건이 불리할수록), 그 업적은 더 인상적인 것이 된다. 4. 창조자에게 가장 가공할 불리한 조건은 비존재일 것이다. 5. 따라서 우주가 존재하는 창조자의 산물이라고 가정한다면, 우리는 더 위대한 존재를 상상할 수 있다. 즉, 존재하지 않으면서도 모든 것을 창조하는 존재 말이다. 6. 따라서 존재하는 신은 상상할 수 있는 가장 위대한 존재보다 더 위대하지 않을 것이다. 더욱 강하고 엄청난 창조자는 존재하지 않았던 신일 것이기 때문이다. 그런 고로, 7. 신은 존재하지 않는다./ 말할 필요도 없지만, 개스킹은 사실 신이 존재하지 않음을 증명한 것이 아니다. 마찬가지로 안셀무스도 신이 존재한다는 것을 증명하지 않았다. 유일한 차이점은 개스킹이 일부러 익살을 부렸다는 점뿐이다. 그가 깨달았듯이, 신이 있느냐 없느냐는 ‘변증법적 속임수’를 통해서는 결정할 수 없는 아주 큰 문제다. 그리고 내가 볼 때 존재를 완벽함의 지표로 모호하게 사용하는 것이 그 논증이 지닌 최악의 문제점은 아니었다. 자세한 내용은 잊었지만, 한때 나는 존재론적 논증을 채택하여 돼지가 날 수 있다는 것을 증명함으로써 신학자들과 철학자들로 구성된, 한 모임을 흥분시킨 적이 있다. 그들은 내가 틀렸다는 것을 증명하기 위해 양상 논리(Modal Logic)에 의존할 필요성을 느꼈다. 신의 존재를 옹호하는 모든 연역 논증들이 그렇듯이 존재론적 논증도 올더스 헉슬리(Aldous Huxley)의 《연애대위법(Point Counter Point)》에서 신이 존재한다는 수학적 증명을 발견한 노인을 떠올리게 한다./ 그 공식을 알 겁니다. m/0은 m이 어떤 양수든, 무한대가 되지요. 양쪽에 0을 곱해서 그 방정식을 더 단순한 형태로 만들어보지요. 그러면 m은 무한대 곱하기 0이 됩니다. 말하자면 양수는 0과 무한대의 곱이지요. 그것은 무한한 힘이 무에서 우주를 창조했음을 설명하는 것이 아니겠습니까? 그렇지 않나요?/ 18세기에 러시아의 예카테리나 2세(Ekaterina Ⅱ)의 후원으로 스위스 수학자 레온하트르 오일러(Leonhard Euler)와 계몽주의 시대의 위대한 백과사전 편찬자 디드로가 신의 존재를 놓고 유명한 논쟁을 벌인 적이 있다. 독실했던 ���일러는 무신론자인 디드로를 공격했는데 그는 극도로 확신에 찬 어조로 도전 과제를 내놓았다. “선생, (a+bn)/n=x이므로 신은 존재합니다. 답변하시오!” 디드로는 뒤로 물러났고, 한 속설에 따르면 아예 그 길로 프랑스까지 꽁무니를 뺐다고 한다. 오일러는 과학(이 경우에는 수학)으로 상대를 현혹시킴으로써 굴복하게 만든 것이다. 데이비드 밀스는 《무신론자 우주》에서 라디오 방송에 출연한, 한 종교단체 대변인의 인터뷰 장면을 그린다. 그 대변인은 질량-에너지 보존 법칙이 과학으로 사람을 현혹시키려는, 대단히 헛된 시도라고 말했다. “우리 모두가 물질과 에너지로 이루어져 있으니, 그 과학 원리는 영생에 대한 믿음을 보증하는 것이 아닌가요?” 밀스는 인내심을 갖고 정중히 답변했다. 나라면 안 그랬을 것이다. 왜냐하면 그 상대가 한 말을 옮기면 이런 식이었기 때문이다. “우리가 죽어도 우리 몸의 원자들(그리고 에너지)은 사라지지 않지요. 따라서 우리는 불멸입니다.” 나는 오랜 인생 경험을 했지만 그처럼 어리석은 생각은 한 번도 접한 적이 없었다. 하지만 http : //www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm에 열거되어 있는 경이로운 증명들 가운데에는 그와 같이 터무니없는 것들이 많다. 그 웹사이트에는 “신의 존재에 대한 300가지 이상의 증명들”이라는 우스꽝스러운 글이 실려 있다. 그중 36번부터 재미있는 것 여섯 가지를 소개한다./ 36. 불완전한 참상 논증. 한 비행기가 추락하여 승객과 승무원 143명이 사망했다. 하지만 한 아이는 3도 화상만 입은 채 살아남았다. 그러므로 신은 존재한다. 37. 가능한 세계들 논증. 만물이 지금까지 달랐다면, 만물은 앞으로도 다를 것이다. 그것은 안 좋을 것이다. 따라서 신은 존재한다. 38. 진짜 의지 논증. 나는 신을 믿는다! 나는 진짜로 신을 믿는다! 믿고 믿고 또 믿는다. 나는 정말 정말 신을 믿는다! 따라서 신은 존재한다. 39. 불신 논증. 세계 인구의 대다수는 기독교를 믿지 않는다. 그것은 악마가 의도한 것이다. 따라서 신은 존재한다. 40. 사후 경험 논증. X라는 사람이 무신론자로 죽었다. 지금 그는 자신의 실수를 깨닫고 있다. 그러므로 신은 존재한다. 41. 정서적 공갈 논증. 신은 당신을 사랑한다. 그런데 어떻게 당신이 무정하게 신을 믿지 않을 수 있는가? 따라서 신은 존재한다.

『만들어진 신』, 리처드 도킨스

/

위의 사진은 이 책과 다른 책. 도킨스의 또 다른 저서, 『눈먼 시계공(The Blind Watchmaker)』인 듯한 책의 표지. 이미지 찾다가 마음에 들어서 가져와봤다.

[nicolae]

SetThings - Critica argumentului ontologic privind existența lui Dumnezeu

https://www.setthings.com/ro/critica-argumentului-ontologic-privind-existenta-lui-dumnezeu/

Critica argumentului ontologic privind existența lui Dumnezeu

Gaunilo Una dintre primele obiecții înregistrate la argumentul lui Anselm privind existența lui Dumnezeu, a fost ridicată de unul dintre contemporanii lui Anselm, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. El și-a invitat cititorul să conceapă o insulă „mai excelentă” decât orice altă insulă. … Read More

[davidhumestve]

Gaunilo vs Anselm