Fuck you Anselm! Fuck YOU, Descartes! Wolven, and irony, to the rescue!!

[wolven7]

This is Anselm's Ontological Argument, for the existence of God. It begins with the definition of God as "The being than which no greater is possible," and goes from there.

1. God exists in the understanding, or [Mind]
2. God might have existed in Reality (God is a possible being)
3. If something exists only in the [Mind] and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is. (Existence is a Great-Making Quality)

*Begin Reductio Ad Absurdum*
4. Suppose that God only exists only in the [Mind].
5. Then God might have been greater than God is. (2, 3, and 4)
6. God is a being than which a greater is possible. (5)
7. The being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible.
*End Reductio*

8. It is false that God exists only in the [Mind].
9. God exists in reality, as well as in the [Mind]. (Rowe. 32-34.).

To which Kant responds 'Existence isn't a predicate." You can't use the fact of something's existence as a definitional term, without making any support extremely circular, and any detraction paradoxical, and logically contradictory. That's the trouble with a priori statements. So i got to thinking, as i'm writing this damn paper, which is now 1876 words fucking long, thank you very much, what would be the best way to show the abudity of the Reductio Ad Absurdum? And then it hit me, like the weak hand of the bitchy goth who'll use it wrong: Irony!

"God is a being than which no lesser is possible."
1. God exists in reality.
2. God might have existed in the understaning or [Mind].
3. If something exists in reality and might have existed only in the [Mind], then it might have been less than it is. (Existence is a Great-Making Quality)

*Begin Reductio Ad Absurdum*
4. Suppose that God exists in Reality.
5. Then God might have been less than God is. (2, 3, and 4)
6. God is a being than which a lesser is possible. (5)
7. The being than which none lesser is possible is a being than which a lesser is possible.
*End Reductio*

8. It is false that God exists in reality, as well as in the [Mind].
9. God exists only in the [Mind].

And i end the whole thing with the line: "Of course, to do that, you have to assume that existence is a predicate, here, too." Hehehe... i love being me.

In other news, i had a bunch of fucked up fever dreams, this afternoon, including riding on a motocycle, with my mom, to some victorian farmhouse, andsome classic slasher, horror footage. Teenage girls in bikinis, and the like. Also got to watch my body fight the germs, in it, and something about a tree, in a field, with lightning. There was more, but it's left me, as the day has worn on.

Love me, for i am your god.

Dream Well

Comments

[kitsuchan.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about step 3 in your argument...

[tkc.livejournal.com]

And I'm not sure about the grammar. "than which no greater"? I think "with which no greater" would be MUCH more correct.

Re:

[wolven.livejournal.com]

IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT!! IT'S ANSELM'S ARGUMENT!!

Re:

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Likewise, it is not my grammar, but the grammar of Anselm. It was an attempt at subtle Irony.

Apperantly, it didn't work out too well.

fevers are fun

[nytehiker.livejournal.com]

I remember a year or so ago I was sick with the flu really bad. I had this dream that W's and Q's were chasing me..they were supposed to be like germ cells or something. Feverish dreams are always fun.....aren't they?

Re: fevers are fun

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Excet for the one i had, when i was around 11, or so.

I dreamed the Apocalypse. Then i woke up, ate food, and vomited for a while.

Re: fevers are fun

[nytehiker.livejournal.com]

fun

[(Anonymous)]

There God exists only in reality, and only in the mind, and is both greater and lesser than anything else.
God is All, and reality exists in the consciousness of the perceiver, yet is also being perceived.

Re:

[wolven.livejournal.com]

DING! ^_^

Gah...Brainfart...

[(Anonymous)]

...then eerie moment of clarity.
God doesn't just exist in either. He/She/It exists in both because God IS BOTH.
-Mech

Re: Gah...Brainfart...

[wolven.livejournal.com]

DING!

reply on behalf of the fool

[(Anonymous)]

dude, your refutation is based on a false premise. The entire point of the anselm/cartesian ontological proof of god is that god must be greater than that which the mind can percieve as a definition, you can't simply invert the statement and still have a coherent axiom. How can one define god as that than which nothing is lesser? The whole reason the proof works (kinda in that cheap logic fucked up bullshitish way that makes me hate both Anselm and Dez Cartez...) is that the definition of god is broad enough to describe something too great for description. How can one describe god as lesser than anything which the human mind can imagine, because that is the premise you have to go on to make that argument. By the way though, if the grammar in your edition of the proslogion is bad, that be the translators fault. a= mind's ability to contemplate the divine, b= true formal contemplation of the divine, b>a therefore b is something which a can not concieve, therefore b must exist beyond a. this does not mean that b<a must also be true. Neo-guanilo, aka Patrick

what the heck

[(Anonymous)]

stupid thing cut off the last of my comment, I was going to say: b>/a is not a valid argument, because how can this be true: b>a, a>b it's faulty logic. geez I hate symbolic logic...sometimes though it works. If you wanted to define the divine as that than which nothing lesser can be concieved, then you can't also use the premise that it is that than which nothing greater can be concieved, if you can't combine the two premises together, how can one refute the other? sorry must sleep now.

Re: what the heck

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Remember: The Structure of the Ontological Argument is the thing that 's important. The Definitional Quality that sets it all up is meaningless. The Format is the thing. With that said, the Format can be used in any manner, as long as you deal in Absolute Extremes of Greatest or Least.

And besides, If God is the Greatest Conceivable Being, it is necesarily the Least. To be The Greatest Anything, you have to encompass all POSSIBLE states of that thing. As Anselm is basically trying to present God as the Greatest Conceivable REALITY, then God must necessarily exemplify, as greatly as possible, all states OF Reality.

*Shrug*