|Abstract||In order to make this point, in the next section I will present a very simple, intuitive reconstruction of Anselm’s argument. Then, in the third section, I will show that since the argument thus reconstructed is obviously valid, and it would be foolish to challenge any other of its premises except the assumption that God does not exist in reality, it is a sound proof of God’s existence. Nevertheless, in the fourth section, I will argue further that despite its soundness, this proof can rationally be rejected by anyone who refuses to think..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Geoffrey Scarre (1984). Proof and Implication in Mill's Philosophy of Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 5 (1):19-37.
Gyula Klima, Saint Anselm's Proof: A Problem of Reference, Intentional Identity and Mutual Understanding.
Gerald Cator (1908). Id Quo Majus Cogitari Nequit. The Monist 18 (4):517-543.
Hermann Weidemann (2009). „Quod Maius Est“. Der Springende Punkt in Anselms Ontologischem Argument. Archiv für Geschichte Der Philosophie 91 (1):1-20.
Edward N. Zalta (2007). Reflections on the Logic of the Ontological Argument. Studia Neoaristotelica 4 (1):28-35.
Lynne Rudder Baker & Gareth Matthews (2010). Anselm's Argument Reconsidered. Review of Metaphysics 64 (1):31-54.
Gregory B. Sadler (2006). Mercy and Justice in St. Anselm's Proslogion. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (1):41-61.
C. Jeffrey Kinlaw (2003). Schelling's Original Insight. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (2):213-232.
Edward N. Zalta (2007). O logice ontologického důkazu. Studia Neoaristotelica 4 (1):5-27.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #131,640 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?