Anselm’s Ontological Argument Essay Example

Anselm’s Ontological Argument Essay Example Anselm’s Ontological Argument Paper Anselm’s Ontological Argument Paper The ontological argument for God’s existence is a work of art resulting from philosophical argumentation. An ontological argument for the existence of God is one that attempts the method of a priori proof, which utilizes intuition and reason alone. The term a priori refers to deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the type of reasoning that proceeds from general principles or premises to derive particular information. The argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God then God exists. However, this type of argument is often criticized as committing a bare assertion fallacy. The bare assertion fallacy is fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true. Anselm was one of the most important Christian thinkers of the eleventh century. He is most famous in philosophy for having discovered and articulated the so-called â€Å"ontological argument†. Anselm first gave what has become known as the ontological argument in chapter 2 of his Proslogion. Anselm presented two proofs for his argument in his Proslogion. In chapter 2 of his Prosologion Anselm wrote â€Å"we believe that thou art a being which nothing greater can be conceived†. This is his definition of God. In other words, God can be described as an absolutely unsurpassable being or a being that cannot conceivably be improved on. This definition of God should be treated as a stipulation towards Anselm’s argument since everyone may not agree on or depict God in the same way. Anselm went on to write â€Å"Or is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart, there is no God. This statement questions whether or not there is a being with the properties Anselm’s definition assigns to God. To answer this question, Anselm tries to show how God exists in the understanding of someone’s mind but not in actuality. For example, Anselm wrote â€Å"this very fool†¦when he hears of this being†¦understands what he hears†¦although he does not understand it to exist†. Anselm’s assumption here is that if I understand claims about God, then we may say that God exists in my understanding or in my mind. Anselm goes on to justify his assumption by using the analogy of a painter. In short, when a painter first conceives of what it is he wants to accomplish, he has it in his understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. He doesn’t understand it to exist because he has yet to construct his painting. His point in general is that there is a difference between saying that something exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something exists. Anselm goes on to introduce another assumption that could be considered a new version of the argument. He tries to show that God cannot possibly exist in the understanding alone by contrasting existing in the understand with existing in reality. One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselms argument was raised by one of Anselms contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. One of the problems that he brings forth is that Anselm’s argument could be applied to things other than God. If the argument were valid, it could be applied to things that are clearly imaginary. Here is where the example of the lost island is introduced. Gaunilo invited his readers to think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island. As a matter of fact, it is likely that no such island actually exists. However, his argument would then say that we arent thinking of the greatest conceivable island, because the greatest conceivable island would exist, as well as having all those other desirable properties. Note that this is merely a direct application of Anselms own premise that existence is a perfection. Since we can conceive of this greatest or most perfect conceivable island, then it must exist. While this argument seems absurd, Gaunilo claims that it is no more so than Anselms. Gaunilo asserts that an additional argument is needed to a being like the one Anselm described exists. Another problem Gaunilo discovers is if one can actually understand what is supposed to be understood for Anselm’s argument to work. God is unlike any creature or anything that we have conceived of so Gaunilo questions whether the idea of such a being can be conceived. In Anselm’s view Gaunilo, Gaunilo demands a further argument precisely because he has not understood the argument as Anselm has presented it. While St. Thomas Aquinas believed that Gods existence is self-evident, he rejected the idea that it can be deduced from claims about the concept of God. Aquinas argued, plausibly enough, that not everyone who hears this word God understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. The idea here is that, since different people have different concepts of God, this argument works, if at all, only to convince those who define the notion of God in the same way. Aquinas had a second problem with the ontological argument. On Aquinass view, even if we assume that everyone shares the same concept of God as a being than which none greater can be imagined, it does not therefore follow that he understands what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Pure Reason. As an idea of pure reason, we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner†¦ the object of this idea†¦, but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the ideal of the supreme good. The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and is necessary from the practical point of view. Later, in the Logic, he argued that the idea of God can only be proved through the moral law and only with practical intent, that is, the intent so as to act as if there be a God Immanuel Kant directs his famous objection at premise 3s claim that a being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. According to premise 3, existence is whats known as a great-making property or, as the matter is sometimes put, a perfection. Premise 3 entails that existence is a property and instantiating existence makes a thing better, other things being equal, than it would have been otherwise. Kant rejects premise 3 on the ground that, as a purely formal matter, existence does not function as a predicate. Each of the philosophers I have discussed has made very persuasive arguments. I find Gaunilo argument to be very compelling for various reasons. I feel like he disproves Anselm’s arguments by stating that his argument applies to more than what he is trying to prove exists. If Anselm’s argument was proven to be true, anything we imagined might actually exist. Even though I believe in God, Gaunilo’s argument makes plenty of sense to me.

Common Application Sample Short Answer on Riding Horses

Common Application Sample Short Answer on Riding Horses Many college applications, including those with supplemental essays on the Common Application, include a short answer section that asks a question along these lines: Please elaborate on one of your extracurricular activities or work experiences. The question provides an opportunity for you to tell the admissions folks a little more about something that you truly care about, or an activity that has had a meaningful impact on your life. As Lauras short answer illustrates, the focus of the essay doesnt have to be a formal school activity or a competitive sport. Laura simply writes about something she loves, and in the process provides a window into her personality and passions. Laura's Short Answer Essay In response to her college applications short answer question on an extracurricular activity, Laura wrote about her love of horseback riding: I dont ride for blue ribbons or Olympic golds, although I respect and admire those chosen few who do. I dont ride for the workout, although my trembling muscles at the end of a good lesson indicate otherwise. I dont ride because I have anything to prove, although Ive proven a lot to myself along the way. I ride for the feeling of two individual beings becoming one, so perfectly matched that its impossible to tell where rider ends and horse begins. I ride to feel the staccato beat of hooves against dirt echoed in the rhythm of my own heart. I ride because it isnt easy to navigate a creature with a mind of its own around a course of solid obstacles, but in that perfect moment when horse and rider work as one, it can be the easiest thing in the world. I ride for an affectionate nose nudging my shoulder as I turn to leave, searching for a treat or a pat or murmured words of praise. I ride for myself, but for my horse as well, my partner and my equal. Critique of Laura's Short Answer Essay Its important to note what Lauras short answer does and does not do. It does not tout a major accomplishment. Her first sentence, in fact, explicitly tells us that this is not going to be an essay about winning blue ribbons. The short answer certainly is a place where you can elaborate on your accomplishments as an athlete, but Laura has taken a different approach to the task at hand. What clearly comes across in Lauras short essay is her love of horseback riding. Laura isnt someone who rides horses in an effort to build up her extracurricular activity resume. She rides horses because she loves riding horses. Her passion for her favorite activity is unquestionable. Another positive feature of Lauras short answer is the writing itself. The tone is understated, not boastful. The repetition of sentence structure (I dont ride.. in the first paragraph and I ride... in the second), creates a rhythmic feel to the essay much like the riding of a horse itself. This type of repetition wouldnt hold up for a longer essay, but for the short answer it can create a type of prose poem. The college is asking for this short answer and the longer personal essay because the school has holistic admissions. The admissions counselors want to get to know you as a person, to see the unique individual behind the grades and standardized test scores. Lauras short answer does well on this front; she comes across as an observant, passionate, and compassionate woman. In short, she sounds like the type of student who would be a welcome addition to a campus community. As far as length goes, Lauras essay comes in at just under 1,000 characters, and this tends to be right around the ideal short answer length. That said, be sure to read the guidelines carefully- the length guidelines can vary from 100 to 250 words (or even more) for this type of essay, and youll want to follow the colleges guidelines carefully. Lauras essay, like all essays, isnt perfect. When she states that she has  proven a lot to [her]self along the way, she doesnt develop this point. What exactly has she learned from her experience with horseback riding? How exactly has horseback riding changed her as a person? In such a limited space, however, the admissions folks wont be looking for too much depth and introspection. More Short Answer Resources By following a few guidelines for writing a winning short answer, you can assure that your little essay strengthens your application. Be sure to pick an activity that is truly important to you, not one that you think will impress the admissions folks. Also make sure every word counts- theres absolutely no room for wordiness in such a short piece. Finally, be careful to avoid some of the most common short answer mistakes. Realize that even a short answer on working at Burger King can be effective if it reveals the value of the work experience. On the flip side, a short answer on starting your own business can weaken your application if the focus and tone are off. How you write your short answer is in many ways more important than what you write about. A Final Word Its easy to pay so much attention to the primary application essay that you rush off responses to the shorter supplemental essays. Dont make this mistake. Each essay gives you an opportunity to showcase a side of your personality and passions that isnt readily visible elsewhere in your application. Indeed, if horseback riding was the focus of Lauras main essay, the topic would be a poor choice for her short answer. If her primary essay has a different focus, then her short answer does an excellent job showing that she is a well-rounded student with a wide range of interests.