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.

Author: Fausida Zurisar
Country: Rwanda
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Technology
Published (Last): 7 December 2005
Pages: 498
PDF File Size: 6.3 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.98 Mb
ISBN: 417-8-92442-464-5
Downloads: 93605
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dagami

For it may be that the vocabulary in question only gets used in premises under the protection of prophylactic operators which ward off the unwanted commitments. This helps to explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a thousand years. Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. Hence There is in the understanding something which is the thing than which there is no greater. The point is that non-theists are not prepared to include god s in the former group of objects—and hence will be unpersuaded by any argument which tries to use whatever vocabulary is used to discriminate between the two classes as the basis for an argument that god s belong to the former group.

Considered together, the argument and the counterargument just mentioned plainly do not give anyone a reason to prefer theism to non-theism, and nor do they give anyone a reason to prefer non-theism to theism.

Section 9 is a quick overview of very recent work on ontological arguments: Here is a modest attempt to provide such an analysis: 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 disposed to think that theism is true anseml take no comfort from them either. Let us suppose for the sake of example that the right thing to say is that the former things exist and the latter do not.


Now, suppose as hypothesis for reductiothat we can reasonably believe that that than which no greater can be conceived possesses the property of existing only in the understanding.

These arguments have been discussed, annotated and amended by various leading logicians: Anselm and Actuality Anselm and Actuality Chapter: Perhaps it is worth adding here that there is fairly widespread consensus, even amongst theists, that no known ontological arguments for the existence wnd God are persuasive.

Defence of modal ontological arguments, allegedly derived from Leqis 3.

Surely it is quite easy to imagine even more marvellous achievements—e. These are arguments which depend somehow or other on Meinongian theories of objects.

However, more sophisticiated Meinongians will insist that there must be some restriction on the substitution instances for F, in order ahd allow one to draw the obvious and important ontological distinction between the following two groups: 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!

In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. In our sample argument, the claim, that I conceive of an existent actualiy than which no greater being can be conceived, admits of the two kinds of readings just distinguished.

Hence it is not possible that God exists. In what follows, we shall apply these general considerations to the exemplar arguments introduced in section 2. The property of being God-like is positive Axiom 4: First-order existence claims are meaningless.

Philosophical Papers Volume I Author s: The property of necessary existence is in the set. From the Publisher via CrossRef no proxy jstor.

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.



Hegel makes repeated assertions in these lectures that there is a successful ontological argument, though he nowhere says what the argument actually is. However, in saying this, it must be understood that we are not actually predicating properties of anything: But surely this cannot be. Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPaperswith links to its database.

The Wctuality include necessary existence, necessary omnipotence, necessary omniscience, and necessary perfect goodness.

Anselm and Actuality – Semantic Scholar

Some scholars have claimed that the entire Hegelian corpus constitutes an ontological argument. No one who believes that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in the understanding can reasonably believe that that than which no greater can be 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.

As it stands, this is deeply problematic. Civil War American History: Perhaps the best known criticisms of ontological arguments are due ansellm Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason.

Anselm and Actuality

For many positive ontological arguments, there are parodies which purport to establish the non-existence of god s ; and for many positive ontological arguments there are lots usually a large infinity! If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.

However, the point of including it is illustrative rather than dogmatic. But it is very hard to see lweis there should be this resistance. Hence Even the Fool believes that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in the understanding. Finally, the taxonomy can be further specialised: Hence, the existent perfect being is existent.