kant and guanlios critcisms

Question 1

guanlios arguments

Answer 1

A response to Anselm ‘on behalf of the fool’ - he asked to image a perfect island even if though it is the most perfect being we can think of that does not mean it exists to think this would be foolish
He used the example of gossip that can exist in the mind but not reality
He is trying to define things into existence

Question 2

anselms response to guanlio

Answer 2

A
Gaunilo argued that God’s existence was necessary whereas an island’s existence is contingent. Therefore, you cannot compare the two. God’s necessary existence dictates that he cannot fail to exist, whereas an island can fail to exist (has a contingent existence). Anselm is essentially saying that Gaunilo commits a fallacy of composition (it is fallacious to compare an island to God as they are two intrinsically different types of being). There is no intrinsic maximum to the limits of the island but God is maximally great.

Question 3

platingas response to guanilo

Answer 3

he says that an island is never the best it can be ‘ there can always be more dancing girls’ unlike God who is immutable and already perfect. These cannot be compared what goes for the island is not the same as Gods laws.

Question 4

how does Kant criticise existence as a predicate (1)

Answer 4

existence is not a real predicate
we can discuss the properties of something to its existence is something else
it would require empirical inspection to confirm its existence
for example, we can imagine a trees roots, branches and leaves but to know its existence we must experience it in the real world
This illustrates the need for observation and experience to define things into existence, we cannot deny things into existence via logic
there is a difference between speaking of existence and conceptualising it

Question 5

evaluate Kants argument (1)

Answer 5

Anselm wasnt trying to prove Gods existence but demonstrate his faith, Gods existence cannot be so easily understood
Barth illustrated this further stating that the argument built a spiritual bridge for Christians to connect with God
God should be a leap of faith not affirmed existence
Tillich and symbols allowing connection to God
arguably we can define things out of existence with logic - square circle - so we can define things out of existence
-platinga ontologicl argument
Guanlios island shows the absurdity of defining things into existence
Humes argument wise man and maybe humes fork
scientific age comte

Question 6

Kants argument about definitions of God (2)

Answer 6

definitions of God are just concepts
they are not verifiable and do not provide a level of existence
Descartes even said that because God is an idea he cannot be said to be nothing and therefore exists
for Kant this is not real existence
Descartes and Anselm seemingly hold a platonic view of episteme and existence but this is improbable
we cannot Go from a definition of God to existence

Question 7

Kants argument about necessary beings (3)

Answer 7

neccesary beings are a concept and cannot be verified
we do not have experience of them and cannot know they exist
theyre are a cupola of judgement - stray from our knowledge

Question 8

meaning of cupola of judgement

Answer 8

stray from our knowledge

Question 9

Evaluate kants arguments 2&3

Answer 9

kant relies too much on observations - descartes this is flawed - reliance on impoverished empiricism
positivist paradigm is due a shift to logic - thomas kuhn
aquinas
ayer verificaion principle and humes fork
language games only meaningful to the individual

Question 10

kant and koins

Answer 10

50 coins in the mind have the same value in reality existing de re is not better as Anselm attempts to argue