MysticKnight Wrote:These two premises prove Anselm's argument is correct though secular Academia presents it with the worse bias:
1. It is greater to exist than not to exist (We try to prevent death because we all believe in this).
2. An action that is imagined and intended, is not as good and great as the same action put to practice. That is to say if we wanted to do a good but we didn't, it is not as good as actually doing the act.
To know Anselm's argument, all you need to believe is one premise which is the controversial premise, that is: "Existence is a perfection/greatness/beauty/goodness."
This has been proven, and the rest will be proven easily. He was no dumb person. When we think of ultimate greatness, we cannot define it if it were not a living reality. This is because life is an aspect of ultimate greatness. It is true, and has been proven in the first 2 premises I have shown.
In fact, while true, you don't even have to argue that living is an aspect of every greatness. Just that living is required for a degree of greatness or is part of some of its instance definition.
You can equate imaging being a hero with actually being a hero, but we know the latter is much greater.
So the ultimate one cannot be defined where it not that he exists. And indeed he has been defined for ages.

So, Neo-Platonism, only convincing to someone inclined to Platonism, rather than empiricism. To a room full of empiricists. This won't end well.

(October 24, 2017 at 9:39 am)Mathilda Wrote: I don't. I hate birthdays and have asked people not to send me cards.

*Looks despairingly at the already-filled-out card. Wonders what the odds are of meeting someone named Mathilda anytime soon.*

(October 24, 2017 at 9:47 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Existence is not a predicate.

/thread

I exist.
Daffy Duck does not exist.

Seems pretty basic to me.

---

(October 24, 2017 at 10:09 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

MysticKnight Wrote:These two premises prove Anselm's argument is correct though secular Academia presents it with the worse bias:
1. It is greater to exist than not to exist (We try to prevent death because we all believe in this).
2. An action that is imagined and intended, is not as good and great as the same action put to practice. That is to say if we wanted to do a good but we didn't, it is not as good as actually doing the act.
To know Anselm's argument, all you need to believe is one premise which is the controversial premise, that is: "Existence is a perfection/greatness/beauty/goodness."
This has been proven, and the rest will be proven easily. He was no dumb person. When we think of ultimate greatness, we cannot define it if it were not a living reality. This is because life is an aspect of ultimate greatness. It is true, and has been proven in the first 2 premises I have shown.
In fact, while true, you don't even have to argue that living is an aspect of every greatness. Just that living is required for a degree of greatness or is part of some of its instance definition.
You can equate imaging being a hero with actually being a hero, but we know the latter is much greater.
So the ultimate one cannot be defined where it not that he exists. And indeed he has been defined for ages.

So, Neo-Platonism, only convincing to someone inclined to Platonism, rather than empiricism. To a room full of empiricists. This won't end well.

Thomas Aquinas was also an empiricist. He didn't think too highly of the Ontological Argument as formulated by Anselm; although, I don't remember his exact objection.

(October 24, 2017 at 1:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 9:47 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Existence is not a predicate.

/thread

I exist.
Daffy Duck does not exist.

Well, Daffy Duck does exist in precisely the same way Yahweh exists.

(October 24, 2017 at 1:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Thomas Aquinas was also an empiricist. He didn't think too highly of the Ontological Argument as formulated by Anselm; although, I don't remember his exact objection.

I imagine it was because it was bollocks.

See the philosophy video, it explains why quite clearly.

(October 24, 2017 at 1:15 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 1:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I exist.
Daffy Duck does not exist.

Well, Daffy Duck does exist in precisely the same way Yahweh exists.

As a character of fiction

Anselm died in 1109.

The asshole thought disease was caused by god punishing people and the earth was the center of the universe.


When the fuck are you going to join the modern world, MK?  You can't hide in primitive barbarism forever.

(October 24, 2017 at 1:16 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 1:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Thomas Aquinas was also an empiricist. He didn't think too highly of the Ontological Argument as formulated by Anselm; although, I don't remember his exact objection.

I imagine it was because it was bollocks.

See the philosophy video, it explains why quite clearly.

While there is nothing wrong with it, I don't do philosophy by animated videos. I'd rather learn from books, preferably from original sources, although I do listen to university lectures often enough.

Quote: Anslem's [sic] argument is sound

Not quite.  Anselm's argument is a  sound, and very little more than that.


Boru

Oh boy!

---

For fuck sake be an Existentialist for a week, all young men deserve that.