Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PHILOSOPHY: THEME 2 - DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS - Coggle Diagram
PHILOSOPHY: THEME 2 - DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
RENEE DESCARTES: ONTOLOGICAL
TRIANGLE ANALOGY
the triangle has a predicate - statements that give us info about an object
in this case, the predicate of the triangle is that it has three sides, and three angles adding up to 180°
if a triangle didn't have this predicate, then it wouldn't be a triangle
using this example, descartes says existence is a predicate of god
god is described by descartes as a 'supremely perfect being', and that He can't be imagined if He were non-existent
god is also perfect - but for Him to have any sense of perfection, He must first exist, as existence is a predicate of perfection, meaning god must exist
MOUNTAIN AND VALLEY
descartes believed a mountain could not be imagined without a valley
he also gave a similar perspective by saying that any upward slope should also be seen as a downward slope
descartes sees the valley as a predicate for the mountain
a valley is inevitably included with the mountain, much like how god falls within the idea of existence, suggesting His existence is naturally occurring (self-evident)
if one understands the idea of god, then His existence is self-evident
SUMMARY
god is a 'supremely perfect being'
a supremely perfect being must have all perfections
existence is a perfection
therefore, god must possess existence
so, god must exists necessarily
MALCOM'S ONTOLOGICAL
says descartes' argument is flawed
says anselm's proslogion 2 could be used as a potential ontological argument
malcom argues that god's existence is possible nor impossible
if god does exist, then He exists necessarily
malcolm says that the idea that god exists is more probable than the idea He doesn't
using this logic, malcolm says god's existence isn't actually impossible
by rejecting that His existence isn't impossible, we can conclude that His rightful existence must be necessary
ANSELM
created two proslogions
proslogion 2: argues that god is the greatest possible being, and nothing in existence can be 'that than which no greater can be conceived'
if we have an idea of god in our heads, then god must exist in reality
god has to exist to meet our definition
because god is so great, it could never be better for him not to exist
proslogion 3: argues god's existence is necessary, saying that once we realise god must exist, we can then conclude that it is only natural that He does, because He is necessary and overlooks all contingent beings
god is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'
so, he must have necessary existence
contingent beings are inferior to necessary
therefore, god exists necessarily
analytic and synthetic propositions
analytic propositions: statement true by definition
anselm believed 'god exists' is an analytic statement as the concept of god includes the concept of existence, and without it 'god' wouldn't apply
synthetic proposition: adds understanding beyond definition
in order to know whether something was true or not, you would have to see it for yourself
CRITICISMS
GAUNILO
argued 'on behalf of the fool' - criticism against proslogion 2
he gave the example of a perfect island; if it's perfect, it would have to exist, according to anselm's first argument
with the example he rejected the idea of God being perfect equating to His existence, essentially rejecting the idea that He is the 'greatest conceivable being'
KANT
rejected descartes' idea of existence being a predicate of God's existence, using an example of 100 thalers (coins)
he states to imagine 100 thalers, then observe them; the amount doesn't change just because it exists - it may be better that it does exist, but it doesn't mean they're perfect
in the same sense, kant argues that just because God is perceived as perfect, doesn't necessarily mean He exists
EFFECTIVENESS OF ARGUMENTS
ontological arguments are all a priori, so there is always a chance the premise isn't true
e.g. anselm's definition of God isn't everyone's definition, and if we consider kant and gaunilo's criticisms, God's existence could just be a possibility, not definite
other religions + their beliefs should also be considered, e.g. polytheistic religions, monotheistic religions, atheism; ontological arguments cannot be applied universally as a result