The Anselm Ontological Argument Philosophy Essay

The Anselm Ontological Argument Philosophy Essay In this paper I will argue that Anselms ontological argument for the existence of God is indeed adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the Greatest Conceivable Being. In order to accomplish this, I will argue that Anselms premises are sound, and that his conclusion rightfully follows his premises. I will also defend Anselms argument by demonstrating that objections to Anselms argument are unconvincing. My focus will be on Gaunilos objection to Anselms argument. Essentially, Gauinilos objection is that Anselms argument can be altered to prove the existence of any concept simply by using the definition that the concept is greater than all other concepts which can be conceived this will be refuted. Before I begin my argument I will reconstruct the a priori ontological argument put forward by Anselm to prove the existence of the Greatest Conceivable Anselm begins his argument by introducing â€Å"the fool†, a reference to Psalms 53:1. This fool â€Å"has said that in his heart, [that] there is no God†, or denying the existence of God. Anselm states that even this fool, â€Å"when he hears of this being of which I speak a being-than-which-nothing- greater-can-be-thought understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding; although he does not understand it to actually exist† (Anselm 15). Essentially, Anselm makes the claim that even â€Å"the fool† is forced to concede that the concept of the Greatest Conceivable Being exists in the mind, because he has been told of it. In order to prove the existence of God, Anselm adopts the fools position for his A priori argument. Anselm does not believe the fools position to be correct, but uses it to show that if God exists in understanding, or the mind, then He must exist in reality. Anselm declares that it is one thing for an object to exist in the mind, yet another to understand that it actually exists. To this end, Anselm moves on to give an example of how something can exist in the mind and in reality. The example of a painter is brought forward by Anselm. Before a painter creates a picture, claims Anselm, he has an understanding of what the painting will look like in his mind. Upon completion of the painting, the painter will understand that it exists in his mind, for they had the image of the painting before he created it, and in reality, because now they can see the painting before themselves with their own eyes (Anselm 15). Anselm next defines God as a being-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived. Anselm follows this definition with the premise that if a being exists in the understanding, but not in reality, then a greater being can be conceived (Anselm 15). To assert this point Anselm argues, â€Å"For if [The Greatest Conceivable Being] exists solely in the mind alone, it can be thought of to exist in reality as well, which is greater† (Anselm 15). Utilizing the idea that if a being exists only in understanding then a greater being exists, Anselm reaches the conclusion that a greater being than God can be conceived. Anselm does not believe that this conclusion is accurate, however, stating that it is â€Å"obviously impossible†. By reaching this conclusion, Anslem is trying to show that if one understands God to be the Greatest Conceivable Being and only exist in understanding as a concept, but not reality, then the conclusion opposes the premises. Anselms case is essentially that because the definition of God is not in question, â€Å"the fool† must be mistaken in assuming that God only exists as a concept. Therefore, Anselm reaches the conclusion that God must exist in both concept and in reality. I will now move on to offering a critical assessment of Anselms ontological argument. To accomplish this task, I will examine both the validity, and the soundness, of Anselms premises. In order to do so, a condensed form of Anselms argument is required. Essentially, Anselms premises can be construed as such: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived We can conceive of a being than which none greater can be conceived God exists in the understanding, To exist in reality and in the understanding is greater than to exist in the understanding alone. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality. According to chapter two of Writing Philosophy, a valid argument is â€Å"an argument that has a form such that if its premises were true, its conclusion would be too.† There is nothing to suggest that Anselms argument is invalid. Provided that the premises are sound, the conclusion does indeed follow. However, while the ontological argument may be valid, it remains to be shown that it is sound. A sound argument is one which is both valid and contains true premises (Chapter 2, Writing Philosophy). In order to show this, the individual premises of the ontological argument must be evaluated. Firstly, The truth of premise B] depends on the acceptance of Anselms definition of God (premise A] ) as that than which none greater can be conceived. If we are to accept Anselms definition of God to be plausible, then premise B] is sound because we have accepted the concept and have the idea in our understanding. If we do not accept the definition, then we are not able to proceed to evaluate the rest of the argument. This is not to say that Anselms definition of God is a controversial one, indeed it is a commonly accepted monotheistic interpretation of the nature of God (Mark C. Smith, January 18th Lecture). Secondly, premise B] is sound because existence of such a being is logically possible. No fault can be found with postulating the existence of such a being as defined by premise A]. Finally, Anselms assertion that â€Å"to exist in reality and in the understanding is greater than to exist in the understanding alone† is necessarily sound by our acceptance of his definition of God. By accepting premise A], as we must in order to evaluate the argument, we must concede this it is necessarily greater for God to exist in reality. As a result, we can see that Anselms ontological argument is both valid, and sound, from an examination of its premises. Anselms conclusion that God exists in reality logically follows the premises, given their soundness and validity. In order to demonstrate that Anselms argument is indeed adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the Greatest Conceivable Being, objections to the argument must first be examined and then refuted. One of the more potent objections to Anselms ontological argument is that of the monk Gaunilo. The objection raised by Gaunilo is that the same logical reasoning used by Anselm to prove Gods existence can be used to prove things certain do not exist. Gaunilo puts forth this objection when he argues about the existence of the â€Å"Lost Island†, a conceivable perfect island. Gaunilos proof of the perfect island follows the same logical reasoning as Anselms. He starts with the premise that the idea of a perfect island can be conceived of by the mind. The perfect island is by definition an island than which no greater island can be conceived, and that if a perfect-island exists in as an idea in the mind but not in reality, a greater island than the perfect- island can be conceived (Gaunilo 17). Using a similar argument as Anselm, Gaunilo has shown that the perfect-island must exist in both the mind and in reality for the same reasons that God must exist in the mind and reality. According to Gaunilo, if one accepts Anselms argument as being valid, one must accept the similar perfect-island argument as being valid as well. Both arguments would appear to valid since if the premises are true then both conclusions must be true. The only critical difference between Anselms argument and Gaunilos argument is the use of the perfect-island in place of God. As a res ult, if Anselms method of reasoning is deemed appropriate, then Gaunilos must be appropriate as well. Gaunilo however states that this â€Å"proof of the existence of a perfect-island is implausible, or â€Å"doubtfully real† (Guanilo 17). Gaunilo contends that it is only the definition of â€Å"a-concept-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived† that allows Anselm and himself to prove the existence of God and the perfect-island respectively. By proving one of the concepts, the perfect-island, to be implausible, Gaunilo feels that the other concept must follow suit (Gaunilo 17). I will now move onto a refutation of Gaunilos objection to Anselms ontological argument. The major fault with Gaunilos objection is that that by proving the existence of a perfect island, using an argument of the same structure as Anselms, he has tampered with the definition of an island. This error becomes apparent when considering what the nature of a perfect island would be. In order for the island to be perfect its characteristics must be perfect as well. Any variation from this â€Å"conceivable† perfection would make the existence of a greater conceivable island possible. Furthermore, the perfect-island could be made greater in a measurable fashion if it was to have a slightly increased landmass this reasoning would persist until the perfect-island becomes infinitely large. An infinitely large island, however, is impossible. An island, by its very definition, must be surrounded by water, and something that is infinite in size cannot be surrounded. Moreover, a perfect island presumably has an abundance of lush trees and pristine beaches. The more of these t hat an island has, the better the island would conceivably be. However, there is no defined maximum number of trees or beaches that an island could possibly have; for any one conceivable island, there is another, even-more -perfect-island with one more exotic fruit tree and one more white sandy beach. As a result, there is no island than-which no-greater-can-be-conceived the more trees and more beaches that are conceived, the more perfect the island would be. Therefore, the perfect-island moves towards infinity in its characteristics once again. The concept of the perfect island is therefore flawed, causing Gaunilos objection to be adequate to impair Anselms ontological argument. In conclusion, Anselms logical a priori ontological argument is adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the Greatest Conceivable Being. The premises of Anselms ontological argument were demonstrated to be sound when examined in the context of Anselms definition of the Greatest Conceivable Being. Moreover, Anselms argument was shown to be a valid argument, with a conclusion that follows from the premises. Gaunilo raised an objection to the ontological argument on the grounds that Anselms argument can be altered to prove the existence of any concept simply by using the definition that the concept is greater than all other concepts which can be conceived. However, this objection was shown to be inadequate on the grounds that the concept of the perfect-island is flawed when conceived with Anselms argument. Therefore, Anselms ontological argument is convincing, despite Gaunilos objections, and is adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the Greatest Conceivable Be ing.

Essay --

Pain is one of the most powerful human motivators. People will say anything to make it stop because it hurts. And when used specifically to derive information our federal government can make it hurt a lot. No one should ever have to be put through the type of pain that is specifically engineered to hit your pain threshold, engineered to cause you to fear your interrogator, engineered to make you talk. The practice of enhanced interrogation should not be used under any circumstances because it is illegal under international law, it’s not always effective, and it’s inhumane. What is enhanced interrogation? In simple terms it’s when an interrogator uses techniques that are specifically designed to cause you a.) either so much pain that you break down and tell the interrogator what they want to know or b.) you fear pain and your interrogator so much that you readily give them the information that they seek. So, what techniques does the American government use to derive information from it’s prisoners? Some techniques that they have used are sexual humiliation, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, solitary confinement, mock execution, medical experimentation, learned helplessness, intimidation by dogs, confinement in a box with insects, and waterboarding. â€Å"The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’s stance on torture is ‘No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war or an emergency may be invoked as j ustification for torture [or enhanced interrogations], which inflict pain and suffering and most UN scholars consider to qualify as torture under international law.† (Dinan) However under international law it is ... ... they will never be normal again.(Stephens) This is a list of just a few of the techniques and their described effects that our own government and foreign governments use. The effects are cruel and long-lasting and they stick with you for a long time, not to mention the immediate effects of fear and pain from thing such as being waterboarded. It’s cruel and inhumane and illegal. All in all enhanced interrogation doesn’t get you anymore and it’s just plain cruel. There are many better alternatives to torturing the information out of someone. The more peaceful route should always be taken. If we don’t want our own citizens undergoing the same stuff that we put the citizens of foreign countries through than we should never ever do that to them. It goes back to the most basic rule of all time. The Golden Rule â€Å"Do unto others what you would have them do unto you†

You’re Not Important. You’re Not Anything

You’re not important. You’re not anything. † Granger is talking about how utterly insignificant Montag, and all human beings for that matter, are in the long scheme of time. He continues by saying: â€Å"But even when we had the books on hand, a long time ago, we didn't use what we got out of them. We went right on insulting the dead. We went right on spitting in the graves of all the poor ones who died before us. † Quite evidently, Granger is remarking on how important it is to relish the little moment your life consists of, to continually try throughout your life to make a withstanding impact.More importantly, he draws on how, in recent times, the members of society have become conceited and complacent, assuming there is nothing more to life than what surrounds them, life’s true meaning belittled by the anti-intellectual vision of the government. It is through this manifest that Granger divulges the major themes of the novel, showing not only that life is a constant cyclic process, rather, how important it is that we recognize the position of literature in our social development. As we will explore, Granger acts as the hallmark for part three, and ultimately the underlying messages of the book.Moreover, much like Bradbury seeks to impart on the reader, Granger (‘Modern Day Moses’), hopes to guide his group of literary disciples toward a promised land of free thought, alleviating the Dark Age and creating a new spark of intellectualism. This can be extended further, one could indeed say that Granger, remarking on how insignificant Montag is in the grand scheme of time and evolutionary expanse, is also saying that: on his own Montag isn’t much, but with the collective power of the group, the impact could be tremendous, a message quite similar to Bradbury’s.Throughout the novel we see Clarisse, then Montag, and then Faber, all try to create a humanistic spark within society, to change the minds of thos e who cannot see. However, despite their attempts, it is only when there is collective movement, that we see change. Bradbury is not saying that the individual is utterly useless when it comes to societal change, more so, if we want to avoid potential calamity within the social advancement of society, we too, must act collectively.Granger introduces cyclically regenerated mythological creature, the Phoenix, which becomes an enormously important literary tool for one of the underling messages of the novel. Bradbury uses the Phoenix to describe how its regenerative cycle is eerily similar to the ’swinging cycles’ of society. Just as the Phoenix destroys itself, so does mankind. From destruction to peace, despair to rejoice, society inevitably falls into a pendulum like cycle. Our ruinous actions consistently, much like the Phoenix; result in the destruction of our societal being.Then, the cycle swings back and new life is found, at least until our destructive habits once again reign. Bradbury, through the voice of Granger is invariably trying to warn us of this very cycle, armed with this knowledge mankind has the ability to prevent future calamity, to stop the cycle at its highest point. We differ from the Phoenix: â€Å"We know the damn silly thing we just did. † At this stage of the book, Montag is yet to realise the importance, position of influence, and subsequent responsibility he holds, or, the books hold.Granger acts as the flame for Montag, showing him his importance, showing him how, in the pendulum of time, he is insignificant. More importantly, that it is he who can freeze such a motion, and help society, mankind and all, prevent self-destruction. Granger sets the final tone for the novel, being one of the final voices; he ultimately decides how the reader comes away from their reading. Through his remarks on society’s cycle of self-destruction, and one’s duty to make an imprint on future generations, Granger provid es a summarised segment of the themes and motifs of the entire novel.Perhaps one of these segments one not often recognised; the mirror factory metaphor. Toward the end of the novel Granger remarks, â€Å"Come on now, we're going to go build a mirror factory first and put out nothing but mirrors for the next year and take a long look in them. † To be able to change the complacency and destructive attitudes of society, they need a reflection of what they have done, to recognise who they have become. In stark contrast to the parlour walls , where one sees a human they want to be, instead of one they already are, the mirror will show society what they are, allowing them to decide for themselves.It consolidates the process for self-reflection, helping society to rebuild, by first recognising their mistakes. Further, to an extent he also sets the tone for Bradbury’s final message: how are we to feel about the future, Hopeful? Depressed? Confused? It is Granger who acts as t he cohesion for the themes and underlying messages of Bradbury and that of the entire novel. His outlook, hopeful: â€Å"The wonderful thing about man†¦ [Is]†¦he never gets so discouraged†¦that he gives up†¦He knows very well it is mportant and worth the doing. † Withal, through his remark â€Å"You’re not important. You’re not anything†, Granger not only poses a message to Montag, showing him how to relight society by creating a collective power to combat past destruction. Additionally, through the continuation of his speech, including his Phoenix motif, comments on the cyclical process of society and metaphorical use of mirrors, helps to solidify the underlying themes of the novel, and to a greater extent, Bradbury’s personal manifestation.

Writing Cause and Effect Essays and Paragraphs

Cause and effect composition is a common type of writing in English that shows up often on important tests and is, therefore, necessary to master. Develop your cause and effect writing skills by first reviewing the structures and practices of standard essay writing and then diving into what makes a successful cause and effect essay. Cause and Effect Writing As when writing any other essay, you need to use evidence and examples as well as attention-grabbing techniques when doing cause and effect writing. The key difference between standard essays and cause and effect essays is that cause and effect composition addresses topics or problems by outlining the causes and effects, or reasons and results, of several components of a topic. Cause and effect essays are generally organized by problems, outcomes, and possible solutions. Though cause and effect writing isnt exclusively used to address problems, this type of composition often involves writing prose that proposes solutions to an issue—cause and effect writers can use the consequences of various occurrences to speculate about how to solve a dilemma. No matter what the purpose of your cause and effect essay, the first thing you need to do to start writing is brainstorm. Brainstorm Topics Step 1: Come up with ideas. Get started brainstorming topics right away—the objective of brainstorming is to generate as many ideas as possible before writing. Brainstorming helps you think creatively about a cause and effect topic in order to come up with something that you truly want to write about. Dont get caught writing about a topic that doesnt interest you because you didnt take the time to brainstorm. When brainstorming for cause and effect essays specifically, be sure to think of both reasons and results. Follow each idea from its cause to its effect to make sure that your arguments are well-founded so that you dont waste time on ideas that wont go anywhere. The following cause and effect example ideas show the results of a successful brainstorming session. Cause and Effect Examples Topic Cause Effect College Go to college to get a stable careerApply only to prestigious schoolsChoose to study a popular major for job security Graduate with debt/loansDon't get accepted into college anywhereHeavy job competition upon graduation Sports Play a sport to stay fit and healthyPrioritize sports over other extracurricularsJoin a team for the comradery Sustain injuries from repeated bodily strainDifficulty getting into desired collegeTrouble maintaining relationships with friends that do not play sports Example topics with several possible causes and effects for each of them. Write an Outline Step 2: Create an outline. An outline provides a map for your writing and you should never try to write an essay without one. Some teachers even require you to write an outline before you are allowed to start an introductory or body paragraph because they improve the quality of writing so significantly. Use ideas from your brainstorming session to jot down, or quickly write, ideas for how your whole essay might progress (these do not have to be in complete sentences). An outline makes organizing much easier but does not have to be rigid—feel free to make changes as needed. See the following cause and effect essay outline example for help. Title: How Fighting Fast Food Can Help End Obesity I. Introduction Hook: Statistic about obesityThesis statement:Â  Obesity has become the number one threat to good health in developed countries. II. Body Paragraph 1: Availability and overeating AvailabilityFast food is everywhereImpossible to ignoreHealth ProblemsBuy too much fast food too often because its everywhereObesity, heart problems, diabetes, etc.Plan aheadEasier to resist when you have a planMeal prep, take different routes, etc. III. Body Paragraph 2: Affordability and overspending Affordability...Overspending...Educate... IV. Body Paragraph 3: Convenience ... V. Conclusion End obesity by teaching people how dangerous fast food can be Cause and Effect Language Step 3: Choose the right language. Now you can write a great cause and effect essay using your outline. There are several language formulas that can effectively show cause and effect relationships, so take the time to choose the best ones for your piece. As always, vary your sentence structures for a smoother read and use plenty of evidence to write a convincing essay, then try some of these phrases to take your cause and effect arguments to the next level. Cause Language There are several reasons for...The main factors are...The first cause is...[Cause] leads to or might lead to [effect]This often results in... Effect Language Before [cause]...Now [effect]...One of the results/outcomes of [cause] is...Another is...A primary effect of [cause] is...[Effect] often occurs as a consequence of [cause]. Linking Language Make your cause and effect essay more coherent with linking language—or sentence connectors—that make the relationships between causes and effects crystal clear. Use the following conjunctive adverbs to smoothly transition from one idea to the next in your cause and effect writing. AlsoTooIn additionThusThereforeConsequently