Bering and Kant on a Hundred Actual and Possible Thalers

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Rogelio Rovira
Keyword(s):  
Ontological Argument ◽  
Ontological Proof

Abstract This paper has three aims. First, to show Kant’s originality in using the celebrated example of the hundred thalers as a criticism of the ontological proof, despite being inspired by a 1780 booklet by Johann Bering. Second, to assess Bering’s and Kant’s different reasons for supporting the truth meant to be illustrated by the case of the thalers. Third, to point out that the debate on the example demands a discussion of the problem of universals. Indeed, the value and scope of Kant’s (and Bering’s) critique of the ontological argument is decisively determined by his position on this problem.

scholarly journals How can we know the existence of God: Anselm and Aquinas?

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chibuikem C. Nnaeme
Keyword(s):  
Ontological Argument ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Ontological Proof ◽  
Epistemological Conception ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Absolute

This article is concerned with how we can know about the existence of God. In attempting to do this, the article will single out two medieval thinkers, Anselm and Aquinas, and will examine their stances on the subject. The former holds, as exemplified in his ontological proof,that human beings can rationally know the existence of God, whilst the latter objects to theformer�s claim by proffering that human beings can know God�s existence through effects of God�s creation. Over the years these positions have appealed to people who defend eitherstr and of the argument. Such a followership makes worthwhile my efforts to contribute to the ongoing debate. It is my intention to show the argument of each of these positions and indicate which is more plausible to human beings. It is vital to note that Anselm and Aquinas both accept the existence of God; therefore, the existence of God is not in question for them.The article will only concentrate on where the two thinkers differ in terms of how human beings can know God�s existence.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article challenges idealists�philosophy that human beings can prove God�s existence from the concept, God, as epitomisedby Anselm�s ontological argument. The critique of the argument through the application of Aquinas�s realism exposes the limitedness of the human beings in epistemological conception of the absolute metaphysical reality.

Schelling’s Criticism of Ontological Argument and Interpretation of Kant’s Doctrine of the Ideal of Reason

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 28-62
Author(s):  
Andrei B. Patkul
Keyword(s):  
Ontological Argument ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Ontological Proof ◽  
Real Existence ◽  
Anselm Of Canterbury ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Train Of Thought ◽  
The Ideal

To reconstruct a critique of the ontological proof of the existence of God in Schelling’s philosophy I examine his interpretation of the ontological argument by Anselm of Canterbury and Descartes as well as Schelling’s assessment of the critique of the Kantian ontological proof of the existence of God. I propose a reconstruction of Schelling’s account of undoubted being which cannot be deduced from the concept of the totality of all that is possible and therefore must come before any thought. He interprets reason as having an ecstatic nature which posits precedent undoubted being. This enables Schelling to formulate his own version of the thesis on the unity of being and thought, whereby being comes first and thought is only second. Against this background I analyse Schelling’s interpretation of the Kantian account of the ideal of reason. Schelling, on the one hand, agrees with Kant that being is not a real predicate, hence real existence cannot be deduced from essence in the sense of “what.” But, on the other hand, in contrast to Kant, he believes that real existence of the individual absolute must be assumed, which would be the subject for all possible predicates and whose being is ecstatically posited by reason as being external to itself. I raise the question of the relevance of Schelling’s thought for modern ontology, above all in overcoming ontotheology. Proceeding from the works of J. F. Courtine and L. Tengelyi I single out two aspects of Schelling’s doctrine that are relevant to my subject: (1) the priority of existence over essence in God’s being and (2) the fundamental irreducibility of God to a necessarily existent being, i.e. God’s freedom. It is evident that, in his interpretation of Kant, Schelling somewhat simplifies his train of thought and leaves it unclear how Kant links the concepts of necessary being and the supremely perfect being. It is also evident that Schelling’s concepts of “contingency,” “contingent necessity,” “the whole experience” need further study.

scholarly journals Dowody na istnienie Boga

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-132
Author(s):  
Anna Białas
Keyword(s):  
Saint Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Ontological Argument ◽  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Ontological Proof ◽  
Anselm Of Canterbury

The increased interest in arguments for the existence of God appeared in the XI century, with the development of the dialectic. One of the most famous ontological proof is a proof of Anselm of Canterbury – to prove the existence of God by going out only with HIS idea. In the XIII century, the ontological argument has lost its importance to the „five ways” of the Saint Thomas Aquinas, inspired by Aristotle and based on experience.

scholarly journals Gödel`s Ontological Argument, Positive Properties, and Gaunilist Objection

Sententiae ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 56-67
Author(s):  
Oleg Bondar ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ontological Argument ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Core Concept ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Ontological Proof ◽  
Positive Property ◽  
History Of ◽  
Positive Properties ◽  
Counter Argument

The article is devoted to Gödel’s ontological argument, its place in the history of philosophy, and the current debate over the validity of ontological proof. First, we argue that Gödel's argument is a necessary step in the history of the development of ontological proof. Second, we show that Gödel’s argument (namely, its core concept of “positive property”) is based on implausible axiological principles (this fact raises many objections like Hajek’s counter-argument), but can be appropriately reformulated in terms of plausible axiological principles (Gustafsson’s argument). Also, we consider the debate over the validity of Gödel’s argument between contemporary neo-Gaunilist Graham Oppy and the advocate of Gödel’s ontological proof Michael Gettings. We conclude that Gödel’s ontological argument is immune to Oppy’s neo-Gaunilism. Finally, given the fact that Oppy’s parody is arguably the most fine-grained Gaunilo-style argument in the history of philosophy, we conclude that Gaunilist line of argumentation, even if successful in refuting Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s existence, does not work against Gödel’s ontological argument (what is evidenced by the results of the debate between Oppy and Gettings).

Mendelssohn und Kant über den ontologischen Gottesbeweis

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (5) ◽  
pp. 720-741
Author(s):  
Stefan Lang
Keyword(s):  
Ontological Argument ◽  
Pure Reason ◽  
Critique Of Pure Reason ◽  
Ontological Proof ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
New Interpretation

Abstract This essay develops a new interpretation of Moses Mendelssohn’s ontological argument in the Morning Hours: Lectures on God’s Existence. At the beginning, Immanuel Kant’s famous criticism of the ontological proof of God’s existence in the Critique of Pure Reason is presented. Then I offer an in-depth analysis of Mendelssohn’s original ontological argument in the Morning Hours. It is shown that with Mendelssohn’s new proof of God, Kant’s objections are answered. Finally, it is explained why Mendelssohn does not succeed in completely refuting Kant’s objections.

Waiting for Godo… and Godan: Completing Rowe’s Critique of the Ontological Argument

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-86
Author(s):  
Roslyn Weiss
Keyword(s):  
Ontological Argument ◽  
William Rowe

In his critique of Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence, William Rowe introduces the concepts of “magico” and “magican”—defining “magicos” as magicians that do not exist, and “magicans” as magicians that do exist—to help diagnose what may have gone wrong in Anselm’s argument. As I made my way through Rowe’s intriguing article, I found myself waiting for “Godo”—and for “Godan.” I expected Rowe to invoke these counterparts to his “magico” and “magican”—a non-existing God to correspond to his non-existing magician, and an existing God to correspond to his existing magician—to complete his argument. Alas, like Vladimir and Estragon, I waited in vain: neither Godo—nor Godan—ever appeared. In what follows I shall argue that their inclusion in Rowe’s argument would have settled the matter against Anselm far more decisively than do Rowe’s forays into the murky waters of question-begging.

Anselm's Formula and the Logic of ‘God’

1973 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-288
Author(s):  
Paul M. van Buren
Keyword(s):  
Ontological Argument ◽  
Turn On ◽  
The Difference

Anselm built his meditation Proslogion on the formula ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. The peculiarity of this phrase has been often remarked but not, I believe, fully appreciated. Properly understood, I shall argue, this formula, although unable to support the so-called ontological argument, throws important light on the logic of the religious use of the word ‘God’. My argument will turn on the difference between the two uses of the verb ‘conceive’ in Anselm's claim that we can conceive of that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document