|
actually, will, the ontological proof has a couple problems, but being stupid ain't one of them. the basic one is that the proof is itself circular--anselm is a realist and the realist frame presupposes that concepts exist in gods mind--its a kind of platonism--so within that frame, to say "god is" is to use the category of being--the category being already exists in god's mind--so the statement is one in which the predicate is literally contained in the subject. so its a tautology.
this is not an unusual problem with demonstrating axioms.
again, you can't demonstrate axioms from within a proof that presupposes them.
and at least anselm was up front about the tautological character of the demonstration.
the proof is compelling or not depending on your relation to the framework, to realism in that mideval sense.
that you are not a realist in that sense means that for you the proof is meaningless--to some extent, this is a simple historical matter and not a particularly logical one--anselm was writing from a particular context--aquinas from a particular context--ockham (who i like better) from a particular context--11th century christianity, which took itself as monopolizing the terms of debate on questions like this.
so there are problems, but being stupid ain't one of them.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|