PHILOSOPHY - CHALLENGES TO THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS

Question 1

GAUNILO BACKGROUND

Answer 1

• CHALLENGED ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
• BOOK - ‘ON BEHALF OF THE FOOL’ - PLAY ON WORDS FROM ANSELM’S ARGUMENT

Question 2

GAUNILO CRITICISM

Answer 2

• BELIEVED ANSELM’S ARGUMENT WAS ABSURD AS HE BELIEVED THAT ANYTHING CONSIDERED TO BE THE GREATEST SHOULD EXIST IN REALITY
• IDEA OF AN IMAGINARY ISLAND. -WOULD EXIST ACCORDING TO ANSELM’S LOGIC, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE
• IF ANSELM ACCEPTED HIS OWN ARGUMENT, HE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO ACCEPT GAUNILO’S

Question 3

ANSELM RESPONSE TO GAUNILO

Answer 3

• SAID THAT AN IMAGINARY ISLAND COULDN’T HAVE AN INTRINSIC MAXIMUM - AGREED IDEA ON PERFECTION
• AN IMAGINARY ISLAND CAN ALWSYS BE IMPROVED, WHEREAS GOD CANNOT - GOD CAN BE DESCRIBED AS PERFECT, BUT AN ISLAND CANNOT

Question 4

IMMANUEL KANT BACKGROUND

Answer 4

• GERMAN PHILOSOPHER OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT ERA
• PROPOSED 2 CHALLENGES, ONE SPECIFIC TO DESCARTES

Question 5

IMMANUEL KANT CHALLENGE OF DESCARTES ARGUMENT

Answer 5

• ARGUED THAT EXISTENCE ISNT A PREDICATE, AS PREDICATES DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF AN OBJECT NO MATTER WHAT
• EXAMPLE OF COINS - THE PREDICATES STILL EXIST EVEN IF THE COIN DOESN’T ANYMORE
• EXAMPLE OF UNICORN - THE PREDICATES EXIST, HOWEVER THE UNICORN DOESN’T

Question 6

IMMANUEL KANT CRITICISM 2

Answer 6

• CRITICISES THE DEFINITIONS PUT FORWARD BY ALL 3 PHILOSOPHERS
• EASY FOR THEM TO ACCEPT THEIR DEFINITIONS AS THEY WERE ALL RELIGIOUS - NON RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WOULD STRUGGLE (SECULAR)
• EVIDENCE REQUIRED - CANNOT BE PROVIDED THEREFORE THE DEFINITIONS AND ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE REJECTED