Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Epicurus is 100% correct, but slightly vague. Anselm said, in no uncertain terms, that if something is "greater than anything that can be imagined" it's automatically real. Which is why I used the word "stupid" several times.
|
They are both correct if viewed without any context. That's the thing about arguments when viewed as purely logical things; reality is unimportant. Logical validity exists independently of actual, tangible validity. The logical validity of either perspective isn't the only important aspect. Epicurus may be logically valid, but it doesn't necessarily apply, despite any efforts by you to interpret its "vagueness" with respect to the definition of malevolence. Anselm may also be logically valid, but since the idea that if something is "greater than anything that can be imagined" it's automatically real doesn't seem to be borne out in reality, Anselm doesn't necessarily apply either.
The fact that neither is necessarily representative of reality doesn't mean that they're useless, it just means that they are only good for what they are good for.