Mind 113 (451):437-476 (2004)
|Abstract||Anselm's Ontological Argument fails, but not for any of the various reasons commonly adduced. In particular, its failure has nothing to do with violating deep Kantian principles by treating ‘exists’ as a predicate or making reference to ‘Meinongian’ entities. Its one fatal flaw, so far from being metaphysically deep, is in fact logically shallow, deriving from a subtle scope ambiguity in Anselm's key phrase. If we avoid this ambiguity, and the indeterminacy of reference to which it gives rise, then his argument is blocked even if his supposed Meinongian extravagances are permitted. Moreover it is blocked in a way which is straightforward and compelling (by contrast with the Kantian objections), and which generalizes easily to other versions of the Ontological Argument. A significant moral follows. Fear of Anselm's argument has been hugely influential in motivating ontological fastidiousness and widespread reluctance to countenance talk of potentially non-existing entities. But if this paper is correct, then the Ontological Argument cannot properly provide any such motivation. Some of the most influential contributions to ontology, from Kant to Russell and beyond, rest on a mistake.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Graham Oppy (2008). The Ontological Argument. In Paul Copan & Chad V. Meister (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Blackwell Pub..
Ian Logan (2008). Reading Anselm's Proslogion: The History of Anselm's Argument and its Significance Today. Ashgate Pub. Ltd..
Mark Owen Webb (2005). In Defense of Anselm. Philo 8 (1):55-58.
Brian Leftow (2002). Anselm's Neglected Argument. Philosophy 77 (3):331-347.
David A. Truncellito (2004). Anselm's Equivocation. Philo 7 (1):47-56.
Chris Heathwood (2011). The Relevance of Kant's Objection to Anselm's Ontological Argument. Religious Studies 47 (3):345 - 357.
Graham Oppy (2007). More Than One Flaw: Reply to Millican. Sophia 46 (3):295-304.
Hugh S. Chandler (1993). Some Ontological Arguments. Faith and Philosophy 10 (Jan):18-180.
Peter Millican (2007). Ontological Arguments and the Superiority of Existence: Reply to Nagasawa. Mind 116 (464):1041-1054.
Yujin Nagasawa (2007). Millican on the Ontological Argument. Mind 116 (464):1027-1040.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads70 ( #15,048 of 722,935 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #14,866 of 722,935 )
How can I increase my downloads?