It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises. Therefore, it is theoretically strong. Anselm proposed in the Proslogian that the existence of God was true for him by the virtue of faith and logical necessity. He proposed a reductio ad absurdum argument that aimed to demonstrate he impossibility of denying God’s existence. His first form of the argument runs as follows: (P1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (P2) If God exists in the mind alone (in intellect) then a greater being can be conceived (in re) (P3) God to be the greatest being, has to existing the mind and in reality, otherwise another being would be greater than God.
Russell says that the value of philosophy must be primarily sought (p.18). According to Bertrand Russell, “Philosophy aims primarily at knowledge, the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices and beliefs (Perry, John, Michael Bratman, and John M. Fischer, p.18).” It cannot be said that philosophy has had a very great success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. Although philosophy is unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, “Philosophy is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom.
In this essay I am going to focus on Anselm ontological argument and comment on its strengths and weakness of his argument to prove the existence of God. Anselm’s ontological argument can be seen as a Reductio ad absurdum, which means it is a logical argument that aims to prove contention by demonstrating that its denial leads to absurdity. Anselm’s argument explains that it is contradictory for someone to accept that God to exist in understanding and not in reality. This is because according to the existence of perfection a doctrine that something is greater if it exists in addition t being thought of, and God is greater than which nothing can be thought therefore He has to exist in both understanding and reality. The argument goes like this: 1.
So, therefore we do not actually know that the proposition is true unless we are actually attending to it. For the second phase of the statement, “I am certain of whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive only because I am certain that God exists,” in his proofs of the existence of God, Descartes uses clear and distinct understanding of the idea of God, held in in our mind throughout each proof. Having proved God’s existence, he can now claim that he is certain that whatever he has clearly and distinctly perceived, he can be certain of. He is also certain of this general principle, linking clearness and distinctness to truth, because God exists, and because God is not a
Anselm’s Ontological Argument The philosopher Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological argument debates the existence of God to be very much true. Anselm concepts God as a being in which nothing greater can be conceived. He also iterates that this being is too the greatest that one can possibly imagine. Therefore, for God to be the ideal concept of perfection, he must too in fact exist in reality and not just the mind, as in the understanding. An atheist, whom may not believe that God actually exists in reality, surely understands the concept of what God is so he then exists in his understanding.
“If you want to believe in intellectual freedom and the progress of knowledge and the advancement of science and all those other good things, then you must swallow hard and accept this: for as thickheaded and wayward an animal as us, the realistic question is how to make the best of prejudice, not how to eradicate it.” Jonathan Rauch wrote this in his article "In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected" published in Harper’s Magazine in May 1995. Rauch goes on to defend incendiary speech and encourage what he refers to as “intellectual pluralism”⎯an expression of various types of bigotry. He also explains the other side of the spectrum, “intellectual purism.” Purism is described as a society completely lacking all kinds of prejudice, in speech and even in thought. Rauch notes in his article our scientific categorization as Homo sapiens, a tribal species whose natural instinct is to seek out people similar to ourselves. These are the people we identify with, a place where we can comfortably express our beliefs.
Chuang Tzu believed that how we perceive things are directly related to each of our separate pasts, or our “paths”. Also, that we need to realized that our conclusions and dispositions would be completely different had we experienced another past, even possibly just one single instance. Confucius believed that all things are naturally good. It is only if you haven’t pursued the way that you can turn out evil. He also believed that the most important characteristic of our personalities is created by how we treat others.
This is a strict requirement, as it demands too much from individuals to always be motivated to promote the general happiness. I will first analyse Singer’s argument, which defends utilitarianisms demandingness and then go onto Williams’ argument, which attacks utilitarianism for being too demanding. Towards the end of this paper it should be evident that consequentialist moral theories such as utilitarianism demand too much from moral agents and are only useful to look at as a utopia where utility is maximized. The following example demonstrates the basic idea of utilitarianism. If my £100 could maximize utility more efficiently when I donate it to famine relief rather than spending it on new shoes utilitarianism would argue that it is morally wrong to do anything other than what maximizes utility, therefore it is morally wrong for me to buy the shoes (Stanford Encyclopaedia, 2003).
Sandel suggest discarding the whole culture of hiding moral convictions from debate because it is unnatural. This suggestion seems to be heading along the right path to creating a more reflective democracy. He is essentially asking for a “free market place of ideas” to ensue and that people will be swayed by truth and conviction. Sandel is very invested in discussing the purpose, the core of things and this leading us to a better form of democratic debate. It is a very ideal way of government and would require a high degree of autonomy on the part of the citizens and it would most likely cause slow progress.
The stronger as Thrasymachus referred to them are those in authority or government. In the first paragraph, I begin by creating Justice as a tool that enhances peace and our common humanity. I also link justice to fairness and equity in its virtues. Also, I debunk Thryasamachus view of Justice as being flawed and shortsighted. In the second paragraph, I counsel that the application of such a theory as it is, will bring about alignment and re-alignment of interest and will invariably lead to revolt within the society.