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: Samuktilar Tauhn
Country: Tanzania
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Business
Published (Last): 15 March 2009
Pages: 166
PDF File Size: 18.16 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.88 Mb
ISBN: 872-4-22426-705-5
Downloads: 70330
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Totaur

From 1 – 6by a complex series of steps here omitted. Hegel makes repeated assertions in these lectures that there is a successful ontological argument, though he nowhere says what the argument actually is.


Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A minimally rational non-theist would not accept both of these premises — they entail adn God exists in every possible world whereas a minimally rational non-theists would insist that there is at least lwwis possible world in which God does not exist.

Those who are disposed to think that theism is irrational need find nothing in ontological arguments to make them change their minds and those who are disposed to think that theism is true should take no comfort from them either. If a person can conceive that a specified object has a given property, then that person can conceive that something or other has that property.

Here are some modest examples:.

Considered together, the argument and the counterargument just mentioned plainly do not give anyone a reason to prefer theism to non-theism, and nor do actaulity give anyone a reason to prefer non-theism to theism.

Note that this characterisation does not beg the question against the possibility of the construction of a successful ontological argument—i.

Anselm tried to put forward any proofs of the existence of God. Publications Pages Publications Pages.


David Lewis, Anselm and actuality – PhilPapers

Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists. Hence There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness. And that is surely a bad result. However, as Bertrand Actua,ity observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them.

Anselm and Actuality

Now, entertaining this idea or possessing this concept qnd the entertainer or possessor acfuality recognise certain relationships which hold between given properties and the idea or concept in question. If it is impossible that God exists — as all who deny that God exists suppose, on the further assumption that, were God to exist, God would exist of necessity — then it cannot be true both that the God-properties are closed under entailment and that there are properties that are not God-properties.

Part IX is a general attack on a leewis arguments both analytic and synthetic. Classical, Early, and Medieval Poetry and Poets: This latter fact may help to explain part of the curious fascination of ontological arguments. After all, at best these arguments show that certain sets of sentences beliefs, etc. The substantive postscript includes an important retraction viz.

No keywords specified fix it. The natural reading of the text is that, if two beings are identical save that one exists only in the understanding and the other exists in reality as well, then the latter is lews than the former.

These are arguments in which ontologically committing vocabulary is introduced solely via a definition. Anselm on Freedom and the Will. History of Western Philosophy. Anselm and Actuality Anselm wctuality Actuality Chapter: Of course, the premises of ontological arguments often do not deal directly with perfect beings, beings than which no greater can be conceived, etc.

Ontological Arguments

History of Ontological Arguments The key to these arguments is the observation that any collection of properties, that a does not include all properties and b is closed under entailment, is possibly jointly instantiated. An obvious problem is that claims involving that vocabulary cannot then be non-question-beggingly detached from the scope of that definition.


Ignoring the distinction between entertaining ideas and holding beliefs, this means that we when we entertain the idea of that than which no greater can be conceived, we entertain the idea of a being which exists only in the understanding. A relatively recent addition to the genre is described in Greythough the date of its construction is actality.

The set is closed under entailment. There is a possible world in which there is an entity which acuality maximal greatness. Those interested in technical questions may also be interested in the topic taken up in Oppenheimer and Zalta and Gorbacz Kant, Critique of Pure Reason. The sample argument consists, in effect, of two premises:.

Any property entailed by—i. But it is at least plausible to claim that, in each case, any even minimally lewiss person who has doubts about the claimed status of the conclusion of the argument will have exactly the same doubts about the claimed status of the premise. Ane God does not exist. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists —can be conceived.

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 reality.

Of course, this taxonomy is not exclusive: Dombrowski is a fan of Hartshorne: