In order to accomplish this, I will argue that Anselm's premises are acoustics, which his summary rightfully comes after his premises.
Proslogion Theologian and philosopher Anselm of Canterbury — proposed an ontological argument in the second and third chapters of his Proslogion.
For God is that than which a greater cannot be thought. Whoever understands this properly, understands at least that this same thing so truly exists that not even in thought can it not exist.
Therefore, whoever understands that God exists in the same way cannot think that God does does exist. God exists as an idea in the mind. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God that is, a greatest possible being that does exist. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.
The argument above has the form: That form of argument is invalid. If that were Anselm's argument, he would not have proven that God exists. Nor does he assert in Chapter 2 that it is a conceptual truth, or a definition, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
He says explicitly that that is what "we believe". In fact, he deduces that that belief is true in chapter 3. So, that belief cannot be the first premise of his argument, since it is a conclusion he is working towards.
While that is how this argument is widely understood, it has been argued that interpretations along those lines seriously misrepresent what Anselm has written, because commentators do not pay close enough attention to the text. In Chapter 2 of the Proslogion, Anselm declares a belief to the God to whom he is praying: So, he asks himself, "Is there not anything of such a nature?
For if there is not, then it follows that that than which a greater cannot be thought is not in reality. From this point onward Anselm does not mention God again until the middle of chapter 3.
Nevertheless, he understands that something is believed to have this nature, and he argues that even this fool can understand this concept. So, Anselm has this thing in mind "in the understanding" even if it is not in reality. But even if this thing is only in the understanding, it can be thought that it is in reality.
And if it were in reality, he says, it would be greater than if it were not. It follows that since it can be thought to be in reality, it can be thought to be greater than it is if it were only in the understanding. In that case, he says, "If that than which a greater cannot be thought is only in the understanding, that same thing than which a greater cannot be thought is something than which a greater can be thought.
But that cannot be. But he does not identify that something as God in chapter 2. In Chapter 3, Anselm presented a further argument in the same vein:The Anselm Ontological Argument Philosophy Essay The Anselm Ontological Discussion Philosophy Essay In this newspaper I will claim that Anselm's ontological discussion for the presence of God is indeed adequate for establishing the necessary life of the Greatest Conceivable Being.
Anselm's Ontological Argument And The Philosophers Saint Anselm of Aosta, Bec, and Canterbury, perhaps during a moment of enlightenment or starvation-induced hallucination, succeeded in formulating an argument for God's existence which has been debated for almost a thousand years.
It shows no sign of going away soon. Anselm of Canterbury (/ ˈ æ n s ɛ l m /) (/), also called Anselm of Aosta (Italian: Anselmo d'Aosta) after his birthplace and Anselm of Bec (French: Anselme du Bec) after his monastery, was a Benedictine monk, abbot, philosopher and theologian of the Catholic Church, who held the office of archbishop of Canterbury from to .
An ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God that uses caninariojana.com arguments fall under the category of the ontological, and they tend to involve arguments about the state of being or existing. More specifically, ontological arguments tend to start with an a priori theory about the organization of the universe.
If that organizational structure is true, the. The ontological argument presented by Descartes in the fifth Meditation is essentially a modern version of Anselm's argument. (2) G. Dicker, Descartes: an analytical and .
Anselm's Second Version of the Ontological Argument As it turns out, there are two different versions of the ontological argument in the Prosologium. The second version does not rely on the highly problematic claim that existence is a property and hence avoids many of the objections to the classic version.