2nd assignment is available in

eClass!

Phil 102: Introduction

to Philosophy:
“Knowledge & Reality”
A sampler of questions and issues

Professor Amy M. Schmitter, Department of Philosophy

 This Week’s Plan
2
´ More on Anselm’s argument for the existence of God:
´ As well as the criticisms offered by the monk Gaunilon
´ And Anselm’s response.
´ And on Wed, another set of criticisms from J.L. Mackie.
´ Important metaphysical issues, but also illustrate very important
philosophical tools:
´ Argument Structure:
For more
on these ´ Anselm offers a “reductio” argument – a kind of deductive
argument
skills, see A
Handbook ´ And Gaunilo’s response provides examples of various kinds of
for criticism against a deductive argument.
Arguments, ´ Concept Analysis:
or the ´ Anselm also offers an analysis of the various attributes that this
optional, “God” (which must exist) must have.
bonus ´ [Which leads into the reading for Wednesday, where J.L. Mackie
lecture in explains a problem for this concept of God.]
eClass. v These are the kinds of skills that the next short assignment asks you
to exercise.
 Recap: What is a reductio [ad absurdum]
3
argument?
1. Assume the opposite (negation) of the desired conclusion.
2. Show that doing so leads to a contradiction (or more generally,
something impossible or absurd).
3. This shows that the assumption must be false,
Ø (because contradictions can never be true).
v So the desired conclusion must be true.
ü A very powerful form of argument
ü it can prove many things that are hard to prove by other
means,
ü it can be used to show what must be the case,
ü . . . and some can be constructed so that they need very few
assumptions.
ü Anselm’s argument is a particularly powerful kind of reductio
argument – because it is supposed to minimize what could go
wrong.
 Recap 2:
4 Anselm’s “Ontological” Argument
(the “single argument that needed nothing but itself
alone for proof”)
´ P1: That than which nothing greater can be thought can be
thought.
´ P2 (where the reductio happens): If that than which nothing
greater can be thought can be thought, it exists in reality.
´ Conclusion: That than which nothing greater can be thought
exists in reality.
´ [Chapter 3 Conclusion: That than which nothing greater can be
thought cannot be thought not to exist.]
Ø There’s a lot more reasoning to fill in, especially to get P2 . . .
Ø . . . But if this argument works, it is very powerful.
Ø What makes it powerful as an argument?
v Look how few premises it needs and how plausible (likely to be
true) they are . . .
Not meant as a
real definition More detailed analysis
5 ´ “God” ~ that than which nothing greater can be thought (NGCT)
´ We think of NGCT.
Ø Therefore (P1), NGCT can be thought (is conceivable).
Ø To think of something is to have it in the understanding.
Ø That is, it has a kind of existence in the understanding)
´ Something that exists in the understanding can also exist in reality (actuality).
Ø Conceivability à Possibility (of actual existence)
´ It is greater to exist in reality than just in the intellect.
Ø Actuality is “greater than” conceivability or possibility.
Ø (We might understand this as having more being . . .)
Ø And we can think of something as existing in reality (or not).
´ The reductio (proof by contradiction or indirect proof):
q Assume the negation: NGCT exists only in the understanding. Contradiction
!!!!
q But it is greater to exist in reality.
q So if NGCT were only in the understanding, it would not be NGCT.
´ Therefore NGCT exists in reality:
v “Therefore, there is no doubt that NGCT exists both in the understanding and
in reality.”
´ “This NGCT exists so truly that it cannot even be thought not to exist” (ch. 3).
 The Nature of this argument
6 Not Anselm’s
´ Why is it called the “ontological argument”? title; it comes
v Argues from concept of God to existence of God much later.

Ø NGCT exists in the understanding à possible existence

Ø If this being is possible, then it must exist
Ø NGCT has necessary existence.
Ø Conceivability of NGCT à Possibility of NGCT à necessity of
NGCT
Ø What do you think of the argument?
Ø Does it work to establish the conclusion?
Ø Are these two claims the same, or necessarily connected?:
o “Therefore, there is no doubt that NGCT exists both in the
understanding and in reality.” (ch. 2)
o “This NGCT exists so truly that it cannot even be thought
not to exist” (ch. 3).
ü Something to think about: how would somebody go about
trying to show a problem with the argument?
 7 How to attack an argument like
Anselm’s – or any deductive
argument “unsound”

“invalid” ´ Attack the premises (they are false or doubtful)

´ Attack the reasoning (the inferential “moves” are bad, that
is, not truth-preserving)
´ Attack the argument by offering a counter-example, in the
sense of an argument of the same form, but with a
Well,
ridiculous (clearly false) conclusion.
something’s
wrong
somewhere . v Gaunilo uses all of these tactics. This often
.. takes the
form of an
analogy.
 Notice how pleased Anselm

8 Gaunilo’s criticisms is with Gaunilon’s response:

typical of the scholastic
method.

´ What “the fool says” [2]: “ . . . could I not also be said to have in
Ultimately, G. my understanding any number of false things that have no real
argues that existence at all in themselves, since if someone were to speak of
“instead them I would understand whatever he said?”
of saying that this
supreme thing ´ [A further argument in [4]]: “I do not know the thing itself, and
cannot be I cannot form an idea of it on the basis of something like it,
thought not to since you yourself claim that it is so great that nothing else
exist, perhaps it could be like it.” But the way I think of other things that I do
would be better
not know exist is by thinking of what kind of thing they are.
to say
that it cannot be ´ [5]: If we have this thing in the understanding without
understood not understanding at all how it can be thought (see [4]), then, sure,
to exist, . . .” But “I shall not deny that even this thing exists in my
that’s pretty
understanding. But since there is no way to derive from this
empty, because of
how g. uses the conclusion that this thing also exists in reality, there is
“understand.” simply no reason for me to concede to him that this thing exists
in reality . . . ”
´ [6], offered to exemplify [5]:Argument about the “Lost Island”
 The Lost Island Argument
9 Anselm’s Argument
´ P1: That than which nothing greater can be thought can be thought.
´ P2: If that than which nothing greater can be thought can be thought, it
exists in reality.
´ Conclusion: That than which nothing greater can be thought exists in
reality.
Gaunilo’s “Lost Island” Argument
´ P1: That than which nothing greater can be thought The most perfect
island can be thought.
´ P2: If that than which nothing greater can be thought the most perfect
island can be thought, it exists in reality.
´ Conclusion: That than which nothing greater can be thought The most
perfect island exists in reality.
“You do not doubt that this island exists in your understanding, and since
it is more excellent to exist not merely in the understanding, but also in
reality, this island must also exist in reality.”
´ Gaunilo’s point: If somebody offered this argument, “either I would think
he was joking, or I would not know whom I ought to think more foolish:
myself, if I grant him his conclusion, or him, if he thinks he has established
the existence of that island with any degree of certainty.”
 How is Gaunilon’s criticism supposed to work?
10 ´ What he is doing is offering a counter-example to the form of Anselm’s
argument.
´ What is a counter-example?
´ Use #1:
´ To falsify universal generalizations (generalizations that all X are Y).
´ Note: generalizations are arguments (but not deductive ones).
´ For example, before 1697, Europeans had good arguments to hold that all
swans were white (many swans had been observed, in many different
circumstances, and all were white).
´ Then in 1697, in western Australia . . .

Counter-
example to a universal
´ Use #2: generalization
´ To illustrate that something is wrong with an argument of a particular
form.
´ The counter-example to an argument is supposed to be just like the
target argument (i.e., it has the same form), except that it produces a
false (or absurd) conclusion from true premises.
´ What does that show? An argument is valid if and only
´ That the original argument is invalid. if there are no counter-examples
to the argument.
 How the Lost Island is supposed to be a
11 Counter-example to Anselm’s argument
Gaunilo’s Count-argument
´ P1: That than which nothing greater can be thought The most perfect
island can be thought.
´ P2: If that than which nothing greater can be thought the most perfect
island can be thought, it exists in reality.
´ Conclusion: That than which nothing greater can be thought The most
perfect island exists in reality.
“You do not doubt that this island exists in your understanding, and
since it is more excellent to exist not merely in the understanding, but
also in reality, this island must also exist in reality.”
ü But that is a ridiculous conclusion.
v How can Anslem respond to this (purported) counter-example?
Ø Show that it is not a counter-example:
Ø In particular, show that it is not an analogous piece of reasoning.
Ø Or in other words, that the argument does not have the same form.
 Anselm’ Response(s) to the Lost
Island argument
12
´ One Response: The arguments are not comparable, because
they do not share the same inferential form:
“. . . I say quite confidently that if anyone can find for me
something existing either in reality or only in thought to
which he can apply this inference in my argument, besides
that than which a greater cannot be thought, I will find and
give to him that Lost Island, never to be lost again”
The argument only works when it is a matter of NGCBT.
´ Another Response: All that is needed for the first premise of
the argument is that we think of NGCBT and understand what
it means:
“You think that from the fact that something than which a
greater cannot be thought is understood, it does not follow that
it exists in the understanding; nor does it follow that if it exists
in the understanding, it therefore exists in reality. But I say
with certainty that if it can be so much as thought to exist, it
must necessarily exist. . . . Furthermore, if it can be thought at
all, it necessarily exists.”
 Is Gaunilon’s argument analogous to
13
Anselm’s?
´ Anselm insists that “that which is greater than
everything else’ and ‘that than which nothing
In greater can be thought’ do not have the same force
contrast,
“the most in proving that the thing spoken of exists in
perfect reality.”
island” is
like the ´ Why? What’s the difference?
first, not
the
´ There is supposed to be something about the
second. concept NGCBT that lets this argument work.
´ The concept: “Now we believe about the divine
nature everything that can be thought, absolutely
speaking, better for something to be than not to
be.”
 How Anselm Conceives of God
14
´ “That than which nothing greater can be thought”
´ “The divine nature,” embodies everything that can be thought,
absolutely speaking, better for something to be than not to be”.
´ Attributes: Is this
Ø Self-existent (chap. 5), like
Ø Creator ex nihilo (chap. 5), Plato’s
Good?
Ø Supremely good, just, truthful, etc. (chap. 5),
Ø Omnipotent (chap. 6),
Ø Understood in whatever way is positive (so cannot be corrupted,
lie, etc.) (chap. 7),
Ø Not in time or space (chap. 13, 19, reply),
Ø No beginning or end,
There are Ø Indivisible, without parts, “simple” (chap. 18),
other
Ø Transcendent (chap. 20),
conceptions
Ø Greater than what can be thought (chap. 15).
of God
Ø What most is, the “one necessary thing,” complete, total and
only good (chap. 22-23).
´ Classic theistic notion of God: all the positive, omni-properties,
metaphysically “perfect.”
 Classic “Theistic” concept of
God
´ Highest being
´ Metaphysically perfect (complete)
´ Full of being (plenitude) with no gaps, or holes (not-being)
´ Has all positive properties
´ To the greatest degree
v That is, all the omni-properties
´ And has them all in a tight unified whole.
Ø The One.
o Transcendent, creator, and moral agent (judge, guide,
actor)
ü Note: there are other, non-theistic concepts of God.
q Next time: a problem for this concept – is it compatible
with the way the world is?