PHIL FINAL

Please read the following feedback and make changes to do a Final Essay : 3000 words on the same question and argument

In particular, Gaunilo’s objection is nicely considered. However, you need to make sure of four things for the final essay.

1. Clarify Anselm’s ontological argument in premise-conclusion form, validly in your words [see below]. You’re not required to analyze ‘Piland’ argument but Anselm’s, but you can keep the former as long as you have Anselm’s argument.

2. Cite textual evidence for the premises of Anselm’s argument.

3. Explain which false premise makes you finally judge that Anselm’s argument is sound or unsound.

4. Make sense of each section by signposting it as each header.

The ontological argument is distinct from different reasoning in that it claims to prove the existence of something. Therefore, if the ontological arguments prevail, denying the existence of God is even more of a paradox than denying the existence of "square circles" or "female bachelors." It is worth pausing to consider what an amazing (and excellent) task it is to infer "God's existence" from the fundamental concept of God. Existential assertions do not usually flow from intellectual ones. Anselm's ontological argument ion the Proslogion was a proceeding from the ideology of having God to the realism of God. St. Anslem came up with the ideology in his Proslogion 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, starting with the argument description based on Anselm. Section 3 of Anselm's reply takes us through the Proslogion and significant arguments about the faith-seeking understanding (end of chapter 1). Then follows section 4 of Anselm's reply that encompasses the evidence of the existence of God's "supreme being." The paper concludes with Gaunilo's criticism of the ideologies and arguments of St. Anselm. Comment by 作者: Mention Section 1 and Section before introducing Section 3. Comment by 作者: The intro will be pretty good if you mention Sections 1 and 2.

1. Preferably, each section title should be given, such as Anselm’s Argument

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. Here is Anselm’s ontological argument that I formulate:

P1.

P2.

…

C.

Read and follow the essay question: what you’re being asked is Anselm’s argument, not somebody else’s argument that you made. So put it here at the beginning, in the form of premises and conclusion.

Occasionally, it may be assumed not to exist anywhere or at any time. Anything that was not existing previously, although it is in existence presently, 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). And Anything which is not present here and probably is in another place may be viewed as not existing anyplace in a similar method. It does not exist at this location.

Secondly, in section 3, Anselm uses the standard form of the fools' argument to answer their criticism. Gaunilo was a priest at the adjacent monastery of Marmoutier, not among Anselm's brothers at Bec. He studied Anselm's Proslogion argument, and though Gaunilo adored Anselm and was just as devout as another man, he believed he would spot a faulty assertion after he saw it. As a result, he prepared a response wherein he attempted to uncover Anselm's perception's flaw. Anselm grounds his claim on the biblical "Fool of the Psalms, who states in his heart, 'There is no God.'" "How are we going to answer the Fool?" Is Anselm's inquiry at the time of Gaunilo's response was named "On Behalf of the Fool" in this setting (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992, pg.99-103). Comment by 作者: In text citation here.

It is often considered within anthologies or compilations which copy the language of Anselm's initial claim. In fact, it is not that Gaunilo trusted, much like Scriptural Fool, the absence of God; he felt the "Fool" might have much to speak instead of him compared to what Anselm had to give credit for.

Anselm, in response, produced an answer to Gaunilo, wherein he endeavored to support his initial thesis "existence of God" and complement it with extra points. Individuals mostly assume crucially unique and fresh reasons in Anselm's response to Gaunilo, although I do not.

Anselm's rejoinder is thus frequently considered a compilation that entails Gaunilo's passage and Anselm's initial reasoning (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992, pp. 105–16).

In reality, Anselm instructed that Gaunilo's "On Behalf of the Fool" and his complete response to Gaunilo be used anytime the Proslogion was typed down. In Proslogion (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992, Chapter 2), Anselm's rhetoric job is "How are we going to answer the Fool" or "What are we going to say to the Fool." As though the ontological reasoning was aimed at the "Fool." But that was not the case. The Proslogion is indeed a prayer. It is addressed to God rather than the Fool or whoever. There's not at all a proposal in which he is trying to persuade the Fool of the mistake of his habits. At the end of Chap. 3 (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992, pp. 83), he possibly proposes it to be a despairing source: Comment by 作者: Citation.

"So then why did "the fool say in his heart, 'There is no God," when it is

so evident to the rational mind that you among all beings exist most

greatly? Why indeed, except because he is stupid and a fool?"

On the contrary, there was a notion that "Fool" might recognize the strength of Anselm's reasoning if it was not for his inexcusable ignorance. He adds in Chap. 2 (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992 pp. 82) that the Fool comprehends the phrase "something greater than which nothing larger can be thought" and all it needs to start the ontological reasoning. To put it another way, the Fool is irredeemably foolish for reasons other than not believing in God. The reasoning does not need you to believe in God; everything it requires is that you are not a moron. Comment by 作者: What premise are you talking about?

Still, if they are talking of the supreme being, they are imagining a contradiction that is not realistic. Anselm, in his Proslogion, 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 a wonderful being should be like. Anselm argues that even a "dumb" can understand the reality of a being superior to every other life. Even people rejecting the presence of God use the same explanation to define Him. Therefore, there is evidence of an existing supreme being, "God."

2. New section header?

Again (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992, pg. 101), 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 more significant than the thought. Anselm continues to argue that because the idea of God is in existence, he should be accurate, as where else can people obtain the perceptions of God if not from Himself? He emphasizes that a supreme being is in existence and greater than one which does not exist. Due to this, an entity, in this situation, God, ought to be real so as to ensure soundness. He goes ahead to paint an imaginative picture of a candle. He claims everybody creates a psychological image of a candle when the word "candle" is said (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992). Correspondingly, St. Anselm contends in the "Proslogion" that every person similarly envisions a superior divinity, and it confirms the existence of God's supreme being. Comment by 作者: Show the sound argument first.

Additionally, in section 4, Anselm sends a reply to Gaunilo's incoherent argument (premise 1) on the existence of an imaginary island. Anselm describes that Anything will be considered non-existent with the exemption of the supreme. He continues to explain that only all the possessions that have either a start or a termination constitute portions that do not exist all the time and everywhere. Therefore, the existence of God, the "supreme being," is actual 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: Where is this premise in the above so far? Clarify the argument and all the premises.

Anselm is also backed up by philosophers who supported the existence of a supreme being. 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 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: Who supports exactly? And which premise is supported? Engage with Anselm’s argument.

Anselm explains why believing in God is significantly more logical than believing whether God is not accurate by speaking to the intellect. The knowledge of an ontological thesis for the existence of God requires a thoughtful understanding of the Proslogion. Our human 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 true love. It indicates that by reflecting on what is really 'excellent,' human beings can deduce information concerning God's personality and character, finally "understanding God" (Anselm & Gaunilo,1992, chapter 2). Since God's personality is associated with goodness, this knowledge makes it evident that God exists beyond doubt.

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 in all places. Premises support it concluded from fools' perspective and the above-discussed elements. Comment by 作者: Clarify them in your premise-conclusion form.

3. New section?

Gaunilo Criticism to Anselm argument

Gaunilo, "an Anselm contemporary," is the author of one of the most critical critiques of Anselm's reasoning. It is comprehensible to be worried that Anselm's reasoning proceeds from the occurrence of a concept to the realism of an entity that matches the notion improperly. As the criticism argues, Anselm just specific quality into existence that is unbearable.

Gaunilo echoed similar worry, arguing that Anselm's perceptive may be engaged to demonstrate the presence of a wide range of non-existing objects:

Therefore, if somebody were to inform us there is... "an island" [bigger than any that could be imagined], I would be able to grasp his remarks without trouble. But imagine if he proceeded on to declare, quite by deductive logic:

Gaunilo's reasoning, therefore, begins by trying to derive the presence of a flawless island using Anselm's approach, something that Gaunilo correctly sees as a counterpoint to the reasoning structure. The following is a description of the counterpoints: Comment by 作者: Raising Gaunilo’s objection is really great! However, it should be connected to one premise of Anselm’s argument, not Gaunilo’s own. Read the essay question carefully. On the other hand, you can use Gaunilo’s argument as below if and only if you compare it with Anselm’s argument in premise-conclusion form.

1. A "Piland" is a mental fact in which no island could be considered to be bigger than it "(that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined."

2. A "Piland" is only a mental concept.

3. A "Piland" which appears both in the imagination and actuality is more valuable than one that lives in the head.

4. As a result, since a "Piland" is merely a mental construct, we may envision an "island" that is larger than a "Piland" "that is, a greatest possible island that does exist."

5. However, we can't picture "an island" more significant than "a Piland."

6. As a result, "a Piland" is in existence Comment by 作者: From which premise or premises can this conclusion be deduced? Clarify more this deductive validity in your words.

The first assumption of Gaunilo's reasoning, therefore, is nonsensical. The issue is that the traits that compose "an island" excellent are not the attributes that lend themselves to philosophically maximum characteristics. It is feasible to envision "an island" as more significant than "island" in some sense, regardless of how strong that "island" is in that regard. If one believes that plentiful produce is a desirable quality for "an island," despite how prominent a specific "island" is, it is still feasible to envisage a more oversized "island" since fruit richness has no essential limit. As a result, the idea of a "Piland" is incomprehensible.

Conclusion

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 to the existence of a supreme being. In section 3, he is faced with the critique on fools' perspective, where he addresses the issue of contradictions and impossibilities they exert on their claims. Section 4 reply from Anselm to Gaunilo on the existence of a 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 a discussion of the significant critique that Gaunilo had against the ideas of St. Anselm. The idea of a "Piland" is incomprehensible if one believes that plentiful produce is a desirable quality for "an island." Hence, despite how prominent a specific "Island" is, it is still feasible to envisage a more oversized "island" since fruit richness has no essential limit. Comment by 作者: Distinguish the sections of your essay and those of the Proslogion. This is garbled very much in both the intro and conclusion. That is, explain your own essay sections. Comment by 作者: Stick to the essay question. The lost island objection was to clarify Anselm’s argument, which should be explained once again at the end.

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)