On the merits of Anselm
In the first stanza, you begin with Anselm's ontological view (by the way, how do you pronounce it? A pinch on the S or the L?).
After he supposedly proves that I must think it exists (because otherwise there is in my mind a whole greater than it and it is the same one that actually exists) he moves on to talk about existence by necessity. To say that not only do I have to think it this way but it really is this way. (The transition from epistemic to ontic necessity).
Here too – since it is conceivable that there is one whose existence is necessary and which is greater than that whose existence is contingent, then we would say that God does not necessarily exist. After all, in my opinion there is one greater than him and he must be the greatest.
1. First of all, did I understand the move correctly?
2. If so, I didn't understand the transition from epistemic to ontological necessity. Even there, it's only me who is forced to think of it as something that exists and whose existence is necessary. How did he actually prove here that it is indeed so?
(And I don't think this question is the same skepticism you're talking about there, where we can ultimately claim this about everything. But on a level where I don't understand the transition here.)
3. Why do we need to talk about existence by necessity when we talk about the existence of God in reality itself? Why can we simply talk about existence in reality and that's it? Why is existence necessary? And if it is not by necessity but only in our case, is it not good?
Thank you very much and may your strength be with us for the pearls you shower upon us. You are no less than the air we breathe 🙂
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
- yes.
- I commented on this myself. The proof is only about what exists in my consciousness/imagination. But the assumption is that if this is my conclusion in thought, there is no reason to assume that this is not reality. Otherwise, a skeptical claim arises here (that my conclusions are not true in reality itself), and this is not what Anselm is arguing against. Why is this not the question of skepticism? That is exactly it.
- First, there is no need to talk about existence necessarily. It is simply true (according to Anselm). If the argument is true then it is true, and if not then it is not. The need for this argument is irrelevant. And yet, I mean, some would argue that there is also a need: at the basis of contingent reality (whose existence is not necessary), the initial element must be necessary, otherwise the question arises about why it exists. I am not sure that this is a good enough argument, and so on.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer