1F Deductive - Challenges

Question 1

Gaunilo replied to Anselm using an argument known as…

Answer 1

• ‘Reducto ad absurdum’, which shows a statement to be absurd if its logical conclusions were to be accepted.

Question 2

What was Gaunilo’s argument?

Answer 2

• You cannot define something into existence.
• An “island which is more excellent than all lands, exists somewhere” and “it is more excellent…to exist both in the understanding and in reality”, ∴ it must exist.
• “If it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more excellent than it”.
• Just because something existing in our minds is the greatest thing we can think of, does not mean that it exists.

Question 3

How did Anselm respond to Gaunilo?

Answer 3

• Anselm said that Gaunilo was correct in the case of an island, but wrong when applying this to God.
• An island is contingent, whereas God is necessary.
• The ontological argument only works when applied to God as he is unique and does not rely on other things for its existence.
• An island possesses no intrinsic maximum - you can always add something to it to improve it; God possesses an intrinsic maximum.

Question 4

Who was Kant?

Answer 4

• A Christian that challenged Descartes’ (and by association, Anselm’s) arguments.

Question 5

What was Kant’s argument?

Answer 5

• It is inaccurate to describe existence as a perfection.
• The ‘perfections’ that Descartes was referring to were simply predicates (defining characteristics or attributes).
• Existence cannot be a predicate; it can be something that an object can possess or lack, but it does not describe anything about the nature of an object.

Question 6

What example did Kant use?

Answer 6

• If somebody holds 100 thalers, what difference does it make to the understanding of them by adding “they exist” to the list of other predicates?

Question 7

What was Hume’s argument? (not on spec)

Answer 7

• Built upon Kant’s argument, saying that it is not possible to take an idea in one’s mind and add pure logic to it to reach a conclusion based on empirical evidence; existence cannot be a predicate.
• Humans base their lives on what they observe rather than what they can rationally prove; even if the ontological argument were correct in theory it does not mean that it exists in reality.
• To think of God in the mind is the same as reality as the mind is the only experiential reality that we have.

Question 8

What was Russel’s argument? (not on spec)

Answer 8

• Anselm used the word ‘exists’ incorrectly: 1) Men exist 2) Santa is a man 3) Santa exists.
• Labelling and defining something provides intention (something up for discussion).
• Adding ‘existence’ to a definition of God becomes an extension of the intention, but not a fact.
• While he supports the statement that God is TTWNGCBC, is an intention, but not a conclusion that God exists

Question 9

What was Frege’s argument? (not on spec)

Answer 9

• First-order predicates: Nature of something e.g ‘The horses are brown’
• Second-order predicates: Concept of something e.g. ‘There are many horses’.
• Anselm and Descartes confused the two, trying to make existence a first-order predicate.