 |
 |
dear steve I wasn't trying to be clever over Anselm's little gem, and thank both you and R.Stansbury for pointing out to me the historico-theological interest of the argument; this i can now see, and it is intriguing. But i met Anselm's argument first as part of a general [Plato-to-Nato] course, and presented to someone from a different milieu, it doesn't strike me as a very convincing argument. Which is perhaps the point of the original mention of this thread [different arguments aimed at different people ...]. cheers john arnold Centre for Medieval Studies Kings Manor Exhibition Square York YO1 2EP ENGLAND (01904) 433948 On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Steve Lahey wrote: > I think R.Stansbury is right on the money with his response to the > accusation about the validity of the ontological argument. The funny > thing about many post-medieval critiques of the argument is that nobody > ever reads the chapter that precedes the argument in the Proslogion, where > Anselm makes it very clear that the starting position is Fides Quaerens > Intellectum. What I think is fascinating about the argument is how medieval > conceptions of modality are buried in the structure of the argument, and the > more you tinker with it, the deeper the understanding of necessary being > is possible, which is, I think, the real point of the argument. The more > one meditates on the concept of a being greater than which cannot be thought, > and what that entails for divinity, the more one is put in awe of > the difference between humanity and the divine. This property of the > argument is generally lost on people interested in defusing it. > What I find interesting is that many students upon whom I spring Anselm's > argument are eager to disprove it, thereby assuming that atheism is ipso > facto proven. The assumption is: This argument for X is unsuccessful, so > ~X MUST be the case! You'd be surprised the number of philosophers I've > met who walk around primed with the standard arguments against Anslem's > argument, chuckling at the cleverness of their proofs of the eminent > reasonableness of atheism. Then again, fellow medievalists, you probably > wouldn't be surprised, I guess... > By The Way, thanks for the recommendation of Plantinga's anthology > which I've used in class very successfully. Malcolm's argument is really > worth reading. > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%