ah, optimism

[aryanhwy]

From a paper on Anselm's so-called ontological argument:

"In what follows we present a formalization of both of [the arguments]. It should be stated however that it is not only a mere interpretation but an exact translation of the arguments into the realm of logic. Of course many authors have claimed the same, but most of their efforts seem to be mere misinterpretations."

It's rather touching how convinced the authors are that they are right and everyone else was wrong.

Comments

[cryptocosm.livejournal.com]

And it's disillusioning to find that people still think there's anything to be said about the ontological argument beyond "Anselm's assertion is fundamentally and fatally flawed." (I can fantasize the reality of any number of things which I can also prove do not, and in some cases cannot, exist. So can you, or anyone with a functioning ability to reason.)

[aryanhwy.livejournal.com]

"Anselm's assertion is fundamentally and fatally flawed."

Probably about 75% of the recent (i.e., since the 60's) literature agrees with this, but that still leaves the interesting question of what is the flaw, and so far there's about 0% agreement on that topic. :)

[cryptocosm.livejournal.com]

One might more productively ask "What are the flaws?" I make no assertion that there is only one fallacy involved. I simply consider the most immediately manifest one to be that people can and do imagine the impossible. Anselm's premises are built on man's ability to conceive of God in a certain way; that provides no support whatsoever for any conclusion about the possible existence or nature of God except as a concept in the human mind. The utility of the latter is illustrated by the ability of a single mind to encompass simultaneously concepts of the Judeo-Christian God, of Cthulhu, and of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[aryanhwy.livejournal.com]

the most immediately manifest one to be that people can and do imagine the impossible.

Which is probably the one that I find the least plausible and the most in need of support. Not only do I feel the need to see proof of this, I'm not even sure what would constitute such proof.