>"Fall down" in that this is an article of faith, on the part of the
>philosopher, rather than something proven or logically supportable?
I think that this is the point of Anselms argument. Faith preceeds reason.
Anselm would argue that without God, humans cannot know anything. The
only reason that it "Falls down" today is when the assumption is made that
the modern philosopher is operating from an objective (scientific), or
neutral position where reason and logic become the criteria of proof. My
guess is that Anselm would never argue like this. The point is not that it
falls down, but that faith in imaterial, timless, and comprehensive laws of
logic triumphs over a faith in an imaterial, timless, comprehensive God.
Thus from a modern post-kantian epistemological perspective, it is a debate
between two faiths. Hopefully this may shed some light on the
philosophical side of this.
R.J. Stansbury
------------------------------------
Ronald J. Stansbury
Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies
The Ohio State University
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|