For a long time now I've been fascinated with various forms of the ontological argument. The most well recognized formulation and the one that I consider to be the most convincing comes from Anselm's Proslogion.
In a nutshell Anselm argues that he can conceive of a being which nothing greater can be thought, this being he argues cannot exist solely in his mind because then it's existence would be limited to his mind so it must also exist within the world.
The whole trouble with the argument centers around the interpretation of the word greater. When you say that something is greater than something else it is often implied that is quantifiably greater as in volume, mass, etc. But greater could also mean a qualitative property such as a great piece of artwork, or a great tasting soup.
One of the earliest rejections of this argument was a number of parodies such as Gaunilo's island where Gaulino argued that he could conceive the greatest island but that does not necessarily mean that such an island exists. But I think Anselm would have objected to this argument by saying that when you imagine a greatest island you have already limited this being by conceiving of it as an island. That is to say it is limited by its property of being an island, it's islandness if you will.
If such a being did exist it would be more of a Spinozan God than a Christian God, as nothing could be conceived as seperate from it otherwise it would be limited by not containing that separate property. Such a God wouldn't be a personal God nor would it be concerned with morality or sin or any other of that Christian goodness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Aquinas rejected this argument for the basic reason that just because you think it doesn't make it so. He also said that what I come up with is going to be different than you.
ReplyDeleteTo Nevyn: yes, this is the most common rejection of the argument; I have been told Kant said something very similar, that existence is not a predicate of perfection or greatness, but no one has explained to me whether Kant actually proved this point or if he merely asserted it.
ReplyDeleteI suppose he proved it as much as you can prove anything in philosophy outside of logic. His argument is very extensive.
ReplyDelete