David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 116 (464):1027-1040 (2007)
Peter Millican (2004) provides a novel and elaborate objection to Anselm's ontological argument. Millican thinks that his objection is more powerful than any other because it does not dispute contentious 'deep philosophical theories' that underlie the argument. Instead, it tries to reveal the 'fatal flaw' of the argument by considering its 'shallow logical details'. Millican's objection is based on his interpretation of the argument, according to which Anselm relies on what I call the 'principle of the superiority of existence' (PSE). I argue that (i) the textual evidence Millican cites does not provide a convincing case that Anselm relies on PSE and that, moreover, (ii) Anselm does not even need PSE for the ontological argument. I introduce a plausible interpretation of the ontological argument that is not vulnerable to Millican's objection and conclude that even if the ontological argument fails, it does not fail in the way Millican thinks it does
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Gareth B. Matthews & Lynne Rudder Baker (2010). The Ontological Argument Simplified. Analysis 70 (2):210-212.
Yujin Nagasawa (2011). Anselmian Theism. Philosophy Compass 6 (8):564-571.
Similar books and articles
Thomas Metcalf (2005). Entailment and Ontological Arguments. Philo 8 (2):131-133.
Peter Millican (2007). Ontological Arguments and the Superiority of Existence: Reply to Nagasawa. Mind 116 (464):1041-1054.
Yujin Nagasawa (2010). The Ontological Argument and the Devil. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (238):72-91.
Hugh S. Chandler (1993). Some Ontological Arguments. Faith and Philosophy 10 (Jan):18-180.
Peter Millican (2004). The One Fatal Flaw in Anselm's Argument. Mind 113 (451):437-476.
Chris Heathwood (2011). The Relevance of Kant's Objection to Anselm's Ontological Argument. Religious Studies 47 (3):345 - 357.
Lynne Rudder Baker & Gareth Matthews (2010). Anselm's Argument Reconsidered. Review of Metaphysics 64 (1):31-54.
Graham Oppy (2008). The Ontological Argument. In Paul Copan & Chad V. Meister (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Blackwell Pub..
Graham Oppy (2007). More Than One Flaw: Reply to Millican. Sophia 46 (3):295-304.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads73 ( #23,556 of 1,410,123 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #32,768 of 1,410,123 )
How can I increase my downloads?