dear ian
i recently read Jill Paton Walsh's *The Knowledge of Angels* [wonderful
book]. In the great theological debate she sets up [between an aetheist
and a fifteenth century theologian, in a kind of parallel universe]
Anselm's ontological proof gets wheeled out first [and summarily
despatched] precisely because it is the simplest argument; and she/the
character suggests that it was an argument for use in persuading simpler
folk, who would be impressed by the trickery of it, and not question
its dodgier assumptions. Er ... not quite sure why I brought this up,
now I've written it down. Comments?
cheers
john arnold
Centre for Medieval Studies
Kings Manor
Exhibition Square
York YO1 2EP
ENGLAND
(01904) 433948
On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, IP. Wei wrote:
> I've never studied quantum theory, so I cannot make a comparison with
> medieval theology. But there's plenty in medieval theology which strikes
> me as conceptually hard and which the theologians obviously
> expected others to find hard.
> One might even seek to distinguish! There are some arguments which are
> difficult but which are meant to be grasped in the end; Anselm's
> ontological proof would come into this category. Other arguments are
> difficult and seek to take the mind into areas where the truth is beyond
> expression in mere words so that the argument always remains elusive;
> perhaps some of Eckhart's work or the writing of Marguerite Porete would come
> into this category.
>
> Ian Wei
> Bristol
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|