Philosophy: Basic Questions



Philosophy: Basic Questions; handout on St. Anselm (1033-1109) & Guanilo

I. Anselm’s proof of the existence of God:

Definition: God = the ___________________________ thing.

Call God “G”.

Proof:

Preliminaries: Since we can conceive the best conceivable thing, the best conceivable thing exists ________________________; call this “GM”.

Anselm’s proof employs the strategy of reductio ad absurdum, i.e., reduction to absurdity. We begin by making an assumption for the sake of ___________________________. We then show that this assumption entails something ___________________, or contradictory, and conclude that the assumption must therefore be _______________.

P1: (Assumed for sake of argument:) The best conceivable thing does not exist _________________________; call this assumption (GR.

P2: _____________ .

P3: We can conceive that GR (i.e., the best conceivable thing existing ____________________) would be a ____________________ thing than GM.

From P3, we can conclude:

C1: We can conceive something (namely, GR) that would be ________________ than the best conceivable thing (namely, GM).

Clearly, C1 is ______________________. We can thus conclude:

C2: Since P1 entails an absurdity, P1 (“(GR”) is _________________; that is, “GR” is true: God exists ________________________.

II. Guanilo’s attempt to refute Anselm’s proof of the existence of God:

Guanilo attempts to refute Anselm’s argument by the strategy known as “parity of ____________________”. That is, he attempts to construct an argument that has exactly the same ___________________ as Anselm’s, but which he claims entails a conclusion that is clearly ___________________ (namely, that the best conceivable ___________________ exists in reality). Thus, Guanilo concludes, Anselm’s original argument must be _______________.

Definition: I = the best conceivable island.

P1´: (Assumed for the sake of argument:) _________

P2´: ________________

P3´: We can conceive that IR would be ____________________________ than IM.

C1´: Thus we can conceive some island (namely, IR) that would be _______________________ than the best conceivable island (namely, IM).

Clearly, C1´ is ____________________.

C2´: Since P1´ entails an absurdity, P1´ (“(IR”) is _________________; that is, “IR” is true: the best conceivable island exists ________________________.

III. A defense of Anselm’s argument against Guanilo’s objection:

We can accept that C1´ is ________________, and that it does seem to follow from P3´. Clearly we _______________ conceive an island that would be a better island than the best conceivable island. The problem with Guanilo’s argument is that IM is ______________ _________________, as he assumes in P3´. Rather, IM is just an _____________ in the _____________. For this reason, P3´ is _______________; it does not make any sense to say that a real island would be a better ________________ than an ________________of an island. Guanilo here makes the mistake of trying to __________________ two things that are fundamentally __________________, such as apples and oranges. (Real chocolate is not better chocolate than my idea of chocolate, since my idea of chocolate is not chocolate, however bad.)

In Anselm’s original proof, on the other hand, P3 is not _________________. This is because both GR and GM are _______________ – since ______________ are things – and GR would clearly be a __________________________ than GM. Thus whereas Anselm’s argumentation makes sense, Guanilo’s _________________. For this reason, Guanilo’s reasoning is really not _____________________ to Anselm’s, and his attempted refutation ___________________.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download