RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 15, 2015 at 7:44 pm
(This post was last modified: December 15, 2015 at 7:48 pm by athrock.)
(December 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(December 15, 2015 at 11:31 am)Jenny A Wrote: We conceive of things that do not and even cannot exist all the time.The Scholastics also distinguished between what can be imagined and what can be conceived. The nomenclature of the argument, like maximally great, conceive, imagine, possibility and necessity, have highly specific applications. I don't mean to disparage anyone not familiar with that philosophical tradition nor am I saying that the ontological argument is correct. I just think there really isn't much point discussing the merits of this particular argument without a contextual understanding of the terms used.
The way I see it, many of their useful and important distinctions have been lost because of general ignorance and modern misunderstandings about the Scholastic tradition. As far as that goes, I too am ignorant about so much about Medieval philosophy and its hard to hold on to the specific meanings of related terms that in everyday life are generally interchangeable. There is so much to learn and everything I have learned has been profoundly illuminating, if only because it provides important context for much of what gets discussed in contemporary philosophy.
(December 15, 2015 at 3:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Not exactly glowing praise for contemporary philosophy.
Or contemporary atheism.
It's not enough to simply parody philosophical arguments with leprechauns and flying spaghetti monsters.
(December 15, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Jenny A Wrote:(December 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The Scholastics also distinguished between what can be imagined and what can be conceived. The nomenclature of the argument, like maximally great, conceive, imagine, possibility and necessity, have highly specific applications. I don't mean to disparage anyone not familiar with that philosophical tradition nor am I saying that the ontological argument is correct. I just think there really isn't much point discussing the merits of this particular argument without a contextual understanding of the terms used.
The way I see it, many of their useful and important distinctions have been lost because of general ignorance and modern misunderstandings about the Scholastic tradition. As far as that goes, I too am ignorant about so much about Medieval philosophy and its hard to hold on to the specific meanings of related terms that in everyday life are generally interchangeable. There is so much to learn and everything I have learned has been profoundly illuminating, if only because it provides important context for much of what gets discussed in contemporary philosophy.
I see no sense in announcing that we don't get medieval philosophical definitions, if you don't go further and provide definitions. What do you think the difference between conceive and imagine is in this context? I think of conceiving as concretely imaging a possible thing. But maximally great is neither imaginable, nor conceivable. So, if you wouldn't mind, could we have the definitions of maximally great, conceive, imagine, possibility, and necessity?
It's been 35 years since I read Thomas Aquainus, or Anselm, and I really have no interest in going back to the oringinals, but given your definitions, I'd be happy to discuss the ontological proof. My 19 year old self was unimpressed. So, provide definitions and impress my 50 year old self.
No offense intended, but was your 19-year-old self mature enough to be appropriately impressed? If so, you were a rare bird, Jenny!