Excellent introductory teaching.

I love your videos - I love philosophy and theology. Your videos provide much clarity.

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks! They are intended only as basic introductions to some of the main concepts in these academic fields so if you're really interested, read, read, read! Best of luck!

Excellent explanations!! Thanks a lot! Best wishes ❤

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

Hi James B! Correct! That’s why Anselm is claiming that an atheist must be a “fool” (logically speaking). The are claiming that they can imagine that the GCB can be conceived not to exist. In so doing, they would, he thinks, be committed to claiming that they can “conceive of a being greater than” the GCB which would seem to entail a contradiction.

@R.LeeOtherson-dt8bx

2 жыл бұрын

Ah

Hello! I wrote this poem about this theory a long while back, I hope you enjoy it. To be ‘not to be’ the Square Circle Not of nought is ‘is’.

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

:-)

Wonderful

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the very kind comment!

a big thanks for the video, great source to begin with something ... also in Anselm's argument he is assuming that things existing in the real world is 'greater' than things existing in real life , is he committing the fallacy of begging the question as his entire argument is based on this presumption

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

4 ай бұрын

Hi @user-ph1oo8px2r, sorry for the long delay in my reply. I think Anselm's assumptions flow from his neo-platonic metaphysical view of the universe, so not necessarily begging the question (especially since he lived before the rediscovery of Aristotle's alternative ontology).

Great video an explanation, sorry my ignorance, but I have a question, could Anselm ontological argument be applied for Aristotle's God the first mover?

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

I guess I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Ontological arguments and Cosmological arguments (specifically Anselm's and St. Thomas') operate from very different ontological assumptions. Anselm's argument is grounded in a Neo-platonic ontology while St. Thomas' is rooted in Aristotle's ontology. Because the two ontologies are very different (i.e., two different pictures of the universe) it would be difficult to blend them. I'm not sure if that helps, but perhaps it helps you to clarify your question.

@goranmilic442

Жыл бұрын

Anselm's ontological argument is obviously incorrect. Premise 1 says that most people, even atheists, see God as greatest being we can conceive. However, this premise depends on what do we mean by "greatest". If "greatest" means all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing, then yes, God is the greatest thing we can conceive. But if "greatest" also means existing (as premise 2 suggests), then premise 1 is false. God is not the greatest thing that we can conceive, because he doesn't exist. Since premise 1 claims he does exist (since greatest means existing), premise 1 is making fallacy (begging the question). Argument's purpose (proving that God exists) is already claimed in premise and that is a fallacy.

@freethinker4402

Жыл бұрын

@@goranmilic442 I would like them to conceive the gratest possible number

excellent. I will be in touch with you

What do you do now, with all the academic degrees you have earned? I would appreciate your answer. thanks

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Vanneya! I'm a professor of Philosophy at Mesa Community College in Mesa, Arizona. You can find out more about me on my website if you're interested (barryfvaughan.org). Thanks and have a great day.

It seems that Anselm made an error of equivocation in assuming that an atheist understanding the existence of a monotheist's belief means understanding that a god or God actually exists. I've never met an atheist who thought God existed in actuality and denied it simultaneously.

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Paul! I think it's much more sophisticated than just a mere equivocation. I can know WHAT a dragon is, without knowing THAT a dragon is. Anselm's argument is trying to show that the "what" question and the "that" question are necessarily related in the case of the GCB. Also, at this point in his argument (i.e., chapters 2 and 3) his is not yet committed to the singularity of God (though he will go on to argue that singularity, simplicity, eternality, impassibility, etc. are also necessary attributes of the GCB). Thanks for watching and your thoughtful comments!

@goranmilic442

Жыл бұрын

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Anselm's ontological argument is obviously incorrect. Premise 1 says that most people, even atheists, see God as greatest being we can conceive. However, this premise depends on what do we mean by "greatest". If "greatest" means all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing, then yes, God is the greatest thing we can conceive. But if "greatest" also means existing (as premise 2 suggests), then premise 1 is false. God is not the greatest thing that we can conceive, because he doesn't exist. Since premise 1 claims he does exist (since greatest means existing), premise 1 is making fallacy (begging the question). Argument's purpose (proving that God exists) is already claimed in premise and that is a fallacy.

This be Jim B. Do you mind if I use your formulation and your response to me in a book I'm writing?

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

You can reach me at bfvaughan1@gmail.com

@R.LeeOtherson-dt8bx

2 жыл бұрын

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy . Good man!

Jim B wrote: "P3) If God exists in the mind alone, we could conceive of a being greater than God." Really? I thought Anselm defined God as "that being greater than which none can be conceived," notwithstanding his existence or non-existence.🙄

U stated that an island is contingent and not necessary because if u rwmove the water its not an island but if u remove 1 angle from a triangle it becomes a straight line and if u add 1 angle it becomes a square. So is contingent and necessary subjective. A god what are its properties, can a god exist without a believer or will a tree in the forest collapse naturally without someone believing it fell.

What I meant was, re. P3): Is it really true to say that "If God exists in the mind alone, we could conceive of a being greater than God," if conceiving of a being greater than God is not possible whether he exists in the mind alone or not?

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

I may not be following your question, so let me seek a clarification. Are you asking whether it's true that Anselm believes/claims that we cannot consistently hold the ideas, 1) God is the GCB, and 2) no such being exists? Or, are you asking if he is correct to hold such a belief? I would say yes to the first, but no to the second. Anselm certainly believes/claims that the definition of GCB entails actual existence, not merely potential existence. In fact, the whole argument in Chapter 3 of the "Prosologium" makes this even more clear in showing that the definition of GCB entails necessary rather than contingent existence. But does his argument actually work? There are two really compelling reasons to think the argument fails: first, Kant's clarification of the distinction between synthetic and analytic propositions. And second, Anselm's dependence on neo-platonic metaphysics. Does that help?

@R.LeeOtherson-dt8bx

2 жыл бұрын

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy . You haven't told me anything re. Anselm I didn't know. I first read him in 1971, in Latin. Kant? Ok....(!).

@R.LeeOtherson-dt8bx

2 жыл бұрын

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy I would be wary of sneezing at the 'volt-force' beneath neoplatonic metaphysics, given the newfound cogency of metaphysical idealism (!)

@R.LeeOtherson-dt8bx

2 жыл бұрын

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy . As part of a novel I've penned a kind of dialogue descriptive of what I meant by all this. If u send me your email address I can send it to you. What say ye?

@R.LeeOtherson-dt8bx

2 жыл бұрын

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Don't think about the question I raised in terms of what Kant thought etc, etc, etc. But in terms of what I said: Is it really true to say that "If God exists in the mind alone, we could conceive of a being greater than God," if conceiving of a being greater than God is not possible whether he exists in the mind alone or not?

Plato is walking down the street and accidentally bumps into a guy. He hands him a book and says, "Please accept my apology."

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

8 ай бұрын

HA! :-)

what does the greater means?

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

Hi Suaybaguio! Great question. For Anselm, the term 'greater' is probably best understood in an ontological context. As a neo-platonist, Anselm thinks of reality as a hierarchy (think of Plato's Divided Line) as opposed to our more binary notion of existence/non-existence. For him, everything that is can be understood to exist to a greater or lesser extent, hence the hierarchy. In this argument, his thesis is that the idea 'god' corresponds to the "greatest" (highest) existence which makes conceiving of God's non-existence a logical impossibility. Hope that helps!

I fail to see how we are supposed to get from the conception to actual existence? If a god exists only in the mind than the second supposedly greater being that we imagine will also exist only in the mind and therefore not _actually_ be any greater. Nor is there any reason to think that we are imagining it as greater than we imagined the first one so there should be no difference at all. (Unless we failed to imagine that the first one existed in reality, in which case we should go back and fix that.) We will be _imagining_ this god as greater than it _actually_ is but that's no contradiction, that happens all the time with pop stars and politicians etc.

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

Hi Hexalobular! I think you are quite right in your concern, and the confusion for us comes from the difference between how Anselm sees the world and we do. To really understand his argument, we have to get into the ontological framework that informs his argument. We tend to think of existence as binary (either things exit or they don't). But from the platonic perspective, things have "degrees" of existence. This allows for distinguishing between conceivability and actuality, contingency and necessity. Complicating things further is the idea that these different types of existence are in a hierarchical relation. This is where Anselm is able to get distinctions between "greater" and "lesser" existence. So, if we think of the set of things that are "conceivable" and compare them to the things that are "actual", the latter have a greater amount of existence. The same holds for contingent versus necessary. The set of contingent things that actually exist would be "lesser" in their existence than the things that actually exist and are also necessary. But, of course, we don't tend to think of these sets in the same way. This is, I think, the thrust of Kant's objection to ontological arguments. It would certainly be true that IF a square existed it MUST be four-sided (that would be necessary). But understanding that logical relationship gives us no information about the world of existing things (i.e., we don't know if there ARE any squares). I don't know if that helps, but thanks for watching and commenting!

I personally subscribe to the Reformed Metaphysics of Collingwood. Collingwood rebuked Kant for not comprehending that Anselm isn't actually making a logical argument but is doing metaphysical analysis. In the prolog, Anselm declared that he believes in order to know what it is he actually believes. Knowledge of anything isn't possible apart from a metaphysical framework of presuppositions. And all conceptual frameworks are built up from metaphysical foundations just as all knowledge of anything is. Collingwood also points out that "God exists" isn't a proposition (a logical premise) but, rather, a presupposition. Take a peek at An Essay on Metaphysics by R. G. Collingwood.

I have to put in that the notion that pre-Nicene christianity more resembled "a loosely organized group of religions than a single religion" is untenable....

@syfeb

2 жыл бұрын

Hello! I agree with you on your notion. I hope you read this and read my poem. I wrote this poem about this theory a long while back, I hope you enjoy it. To be ‘not to be’ the Square Circle Not of nought is ‘is’

@R.LeeOtherson-dt8bx

2 жыл бұрын

@@syfeb . Darling poem, but what does it have to do with pre-Nicene christianity? Please enlighten me. And tell me what 'theory' here you refer to.

@syfeb

2 жыл бұрын

@@R.LeeOtherson-dt8bx Nothing, I was agreeing with you that his position was not very solid. I saw that you were a writer so I shared my poem on the theory, which is the Ontological principle that Anselm suggests. I do hope you do actually enjoy it. Because with this poem I have brought many to the ontological conclusion that God is.

@R.LeeOtherson-dt8bx

2 жыл бұрын

@@syfeb . Thanks for thinking of me as a writer! I've read your intriguing poem several times and as much as i like it i seem to be too dense to get it ...perhaps you could explain its meaning for me in terms of Anselm?

@syfeb

2 жыл бұрын

@@R.LeeOtherson-dt8bx I don't know if I'll be breaking it down into his terms, but I'll do it how I do it for everyone else! "To be 'not to be'" - is a riff of Shakespeare but it carries the truth of what I'm portraying in this poem (riddle). To be 'not to be' means to become something that has not become or wont become, it's a paradoxical idea that suggests something can be and exist that is not existing or can't exist. Hence, the Square Circle, which is exactly this. We know it can't exist therefor it's existence is real. In fact, it's existence is so real we can't even fathom of disproving it! Now, we come to "Not of Nought ", which comes to further along this truth, but points at it in another way, it's nothing of nothing, which can't be, but it IS. Because the essence of not being able 'to be' is something in it self.

Do you realize that in your presentation of Critique of Anselm's ontological argument, which you ground in Aristotle's Critique of Plato's Transcendental Metaphysics and Kant's Criticism of Ontological Predicate, "You are Committing some serious Awkward Fallacies? You have to be extremely careful that you cannot afford to commit any fallacy in your criticism when you are criticizing your opponent. You have to read Kant's text, with caution. Kant himself recognizes that the Ontological Predicate is a Problematic Predicate. My impression is that you did not the read text for yourself, but rather you have taken this piece of Kant's criticism from some idiot who himself did not read the text for himself. I recommend that you pay meticulous attention to criticism of anybody's argument before you criticize. '

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Vanneya, thanks for watching! I'm sorry you were disappointed in the video on Anslem's version of the OA. I suspect it is because you are a more advanced student of Philosophy. The videos on my channel are designed as a very basic introduction to some of the core issues in Academic Philosophy and are not meant to be the final word on anything (which I rather doubt is even possible in our discipline). Indeed, it would be impractical (if not impossible) to cover a thousand years of debate on Anselm's argument in the KZread format. Again, it's really just meant to be an introduction for those who may have never been introduced to these topics in third-level education. As for your speculation about my familiarity with the material, let me just say I have a BA in Religious Studies (Theology major, Philosophy minor), an MA in Philosophy, an MA in Religious Studies, and a PhD in Philosophy, so yes, I have read the primary literature as well as a good deal of the secondary lit. Thank you for your passion about the subject and keep thinking!

@turbopro10

2 жыл бұрын

@Vanneya Athithan: If I may please. You asked, "You are Committing some serious Awkward Fallacies?" Are you asking "A Little Bit of Philosophy" if he commits "Akward Fallacies"? Or, are you questioning that indeed he has made "Akward Fallacies"? If the latter, may I ask please that you elicit one or two of those "Akward Fallacies"? Thx