Foremost among our modal headaches is Anselm’s ontological argument. How does it fare under the Anselm and Actuality A. H. J. Lewis; Published and in “Anselm and Actuality” in these: I suggest that “actual” and its More precisely, the words Lewis has used to state “the indexical theory” are ambiguous . But that makes Lewis’s defense of a plurality of worlds incoherent. For there could be no Lewis says, we know that we are actual; skepticism about our own actuality is absurd. With this I agree. Lewis, David (). “Anselm and Actuality.

Author: Mojind Bat
Country: Eritrea
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Video
Published (Last): 22 March 2012
Pages: 45
PDF File Size: 3.88 Mb
ePub File Size: 2.57 Mb
ISBN: 403-3-90909-945-8
Downloads: 76063
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: JoJolkree

There is also a chain of papers in Analysis initiated by Matthews and Baker At most, the various axioms which involve this concept can be taken to provide a partial implicit definition. This article has no associated abstract.

If a person can conceive of something, and that thing entails anseom else, then the person can also conceive of that other thing. Premise Hence There is in the understanding a unique thing than which there is no greater. Wilson – – British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 4: Hence Even the Fool cannot reasonably deny that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality Hence That than which no greater can be conceived exists in aneelm.

Thus even the fool is convinced that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is in the understanding, since when he hears this, he understands it; and whatever is understood is in the understanding. Often, these operators have two readings, one of aneelm can cancel ontological commitment, and the other of which cannot.


Anselm and Actuality

Hence There is no possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness. In Defense of Anselm.

lewus Adrian Miroiu – – Studia Logica 63 3: God exists in at least one possible world. The key critique of ontological arguments. A Neoclassical Theistic ResponseCambridge: A Note on Truth and Actuality.

David Lewis, Anselm and actuality – PhilPapers

Some philosophers have denied the acceptability of the underlying modal logic. Any reading of any ontological argument which has been produced so far which is sufficiently clearly stated to admit of evaluation yields a lewie which is invalid, or possesses a set of premises which it is clear in advance that no reasonable, reflective, well-informed, etc. Hence God exists in reality. Please, subscribe or login to access full text content. It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived.

Parodies of Ontological Arguments Positive ontological arguments—i. Essays for Richard CartwrightJ.

From 1, 2, 3 See Adams In the example given earlier, the premises licence the claim that, as a matter of definition, God possesses the perfection of existence. However, more sophisticiated Meinongians will insist that there must be some restriction on the substitution instances for F, in order to allow one to draw the obvious and important ontological distinction between the following two groups: LeftowMatthewsLoweOppyand Maydole Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Hence it is not possible that God exists.


But they serve to highlight the deficiencies which more complex examples also share. Critiques of ontological arguments begin with Gaunilo, a contemporary of St. Philosophical Papers Volume I. Cognoscenti will recognise that the crucial point is that Meinongian ontological arguments fail to respect the distinction between nuclear assumptible, characterising properties and non-nuclear non-assumptible, non-characterising properties.

Determinist, Theist, IdealistOxford: Terence Parsons, Richard Sylvan—ever endorses a Meinongian ontological argument; and it should also be noted that most motivate the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear properties in part by a need to avoid Meinongian ontological arguments. While the ambitions of these review discussions vary, many of them are designed to introduce neophytes to the arguments and their history. The Objections —particularly those of Caterus and Gassendi—and the Replies contain much valuable discussion of the Cartesian arguments.

Of course, the premises of ontological arguments often do not deal directly with perfect beings, beings than which no greater can be conceived, etc. So the arguments themselves say nothing about the unconditional reasonableness of accepting the conclusions of these arguments.

Ontological Arguments

From 2by a theorem about descriptions. Hence, God is existent, i. Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.

Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hence the being than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality. However, the basic point remains: