PHIL Draft 2

2

Please read the following feedback and make changes to do a Draft 2: 2000 words on the same question and argument

the argument should be validated clearly, and attack one of the premises from an objector’s perspective. You may incorporate my revision into your next draft. Minus 1: although bibliography is fine, many of the citations are inaccurate. Add the section (§) or page number in each of your in-text citations. Reconstructing Gaunilo’s objection to a premise of Anselm’s argument with textual evidence will be much expected in the next 2000-word draft! Good luck

ESSAY DRAFT 1

PHIL1110 Introduction to Philosophy

Jiaxuan Li

Takaharu Oda

2022/6/11

Anselm's ontological argument on Proslogion was a proceeding from the ideology of having God to the realism of God. St. Anslem came up with the ideology on his Pproslogion of 1077 to 1078. The proslogion was brought about under the argument on the existence of God. In this paper, we I will evaluate the ontological argument evident in Anselm's proslogion. Section 3 of Anselm's reply takes us through the proslogion and major arguments about the faith-seeking understanding. Then follows section 4 of Anselm's reply that encompasses the evidence of the existence of God's "supreme being." Later segments discuss perceptions from arguments and the evidence that Anselm gave to justify his proslogion. Comment by 作者: This intro is concise but can be clearer. Enumerate all the sections you meant in this intro. I can’t see the details of sections 1 and 2 here. Also clarify more your thesis statement in terms of the essay question.

First, in section 1, Anselm responds to the arguments with the claim that when something is not existing everywhere and at all moments, even if it does exist at some place. Occasionally, it may be assumed not to exist anywhere or at any time. Anything that did not exist yesterday but does exist today might be thought of as never existing, even as Anything that did not exist earlier can be thought of as never existing (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992, §1). And Anything that does not exist here but does somewhere else can be viewed as not existing anyplace in the same way it does not exist here.

Secondly, in section 3, Anselm uses the standard form of the fools' argument to answer their criticism. He claims that the fools think "X" does not exist (premise 1). The "X" that the fools talk about is either the greater being, or it is not (premise 2). In conclusion, if the fools are not talking about the supreme being, they have not denied his existence. Still, if they are talking of the supreme being, they are imagining a contradiction that is not realistic. Anselm, in his Pproslogion, argues that "Even a fool has an idea of a being greater than which no other being can be conceived to exist. Such a being, he argued, must exist, for the very idea of such a being implies its existence" (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992). He claims that everyone knows what this tremendous being should be like. He claims that even a "dumb" may comprehend the existence of a being greater than all other beings. Even people rejecting the existence of God use this definition to describe him. Therefore, there is evidence of an existing supreme being, "God." Comment by 作者: The argument is not validly formulated, though it’s a good try! If you meant a disjunctive syllogism, P1 must deny one of the disjunctive clauses in P2, whereby the conclusion is deduced. You might have meant as below: P1. The fool assumes that ‘X’ does not exist. P2. The ‘X’ exists as a being than which nothing greater can be thought. C1. Therefore, the ‘X’ exists and does not exist. [Reductio ad absurdum, from the contradiction anything follows] C2. This contradiction means that the fool’s assumption can be false. You can add more premises to this valid reductio argument, as long as you can make it valid. Also, put the argument into a set of bullet points as I showed.

Again, Anselm creates a comparison of our perception of God with realism. Visualization of the taste of ice cream in a hot season, for instance, stakes in contrast to the realistic feeling. Since God is branded as the ultimate being, God should probably be bigger than the thought. Anselm continues to argue that because the idea of God is in existence, he should be real, as where else can people obtain the perceptions of God if not from Himself? He emphasizes that a supreme being is in existence and superior to one that is not existing. As a result, an entity, in this situation, God, must exist in order to be flawless. He goes ahead to paint an imaginative picture of a candle. He claims that everybody creates a mental image of a candle when they hear the word "candle" (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992). Similarly, St. Anselm contends in "Proslogion" that everyone imagines a superior deity in the same manner, and it confirms the existence of God's supreme being. Comment by 作者: Citation.

Additionally, in section 4, Anselm sends a reply to Gaunilo. Anselm describes that Anything will be considered non-existent with the exemption of the supreme. He continues to explain that only all the things that have either a beginning or an end made up of parts do not exist all the time and everywhere. Therefore, the existence of God, the "supreme being," is true as he exists everywhere and all the time. He concludes by stating that such beings, regarding their nature, cannot fail to be in existence everywhere every time. Comment by 作者: However, what is Gaunilo’s objection to Anselm’s argument? Explain which premise of A’s argument does G attacks.

Anselm is also backed up by philosophers who supported the existence of a supreme being. In Anselm's "Fifth Meditation," Rene Descartes, the famed Renaissance philosopher, adopted several of St. Anselm's concepts. He thought it was paradoxical to imagine a faultless and stronger entity while claiming they did not exist. He likened it to attempting to imagine a triangle with no edges that add up to 180 °, which is impossible because a triangle's inner angles must sum up to 180 ° (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992). He claims that based on this analogy, because humans can think of an ultimate being, the concept of one existing, and hence God should exist. Comment by 作者: Confusing. Comment by 作者: Cite Descartes. Comment by 作者: Which premise of Anselm’s argument do you mean? Signpost it and engage the argument.

Anselm explains why believing in God is significantly more logical than believing whether God is not real by speaking to the intellect. Knowledge of? an ontological thesis for the existence of God requires a thoughtful of the Proslogion. Our hHuman's grasp of inherent virtue (since humanity knows what is right and what is wrong) is a sign of increased ethical beliefs, and hence God's kindness is a type of factual love. It indicates that by reflecting on what is really 'excellent,' human being can deduce information concerning God's personality and character, finally 'understanding God.' Since God's personality is associated with goodness, this knowledge makes it evident that God exists beyond doubt. Comment by 作者: Unclear. Comment by 作者: Clarify. Comment by 作者: Citation.

Based on the arguments and evidence that Anselm provided, it is possible to affirm that there is the existence of a supreme being who is present at all times and all places. Premises support it concluded from fools' perspective and the above discussed elements.

In conclusion, Anselm's arguments have faced criticism and support from different philosophers. He managed to respond to the different opposing arguments by explaining the contradictions to their arguments. It starts with section 2 response on the existence of supreme being. In section 3 he is faced with the critic on fools' perspective where he addressed the issue of contradictions and impossibilities they exert to their claims. Section 4 reply from Anselm to Gaunilo on the existence of supreme being is directed to the existence of a being that is present in every place at all the time. It affirmed that there is the existence of God. The paper ends with logical evidence that Anslem gave concerning the existence of God and thus drives us to believe that God is in existence and his powerful awareness. Comment by 作者: Clarify in 500 words more in the next draft! Bear in mind that Gaunilo’s criticism sticks to one falsifiable premise of Anselm’s argument. Comment by 作者: If you justify A’s argument, then state that it is ‘sound’ for all the true premises.

References

Anselm, S., & Gaunilo. (1992). St. Anselm’s Proslogion: With a Reply on Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilo and the Author’s Reply to Gaunilo (M. J. Charlesworth, Ed.). University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1979)

In the Proslogion, St. Anselm presents a philosophical argument for the existence of God. His proof has played an important role in the history of philosophy. Included in this edition are Gaunilo’s “A Reply on Behalf of the Fool” and St.Anselm’s “The Author’s Reply to Gaunilio”. Comment by 作者: Very good to note the objection of Gaunilo. But you can put this info into the body text. In bibliography, only the references make sense.