1 of 1- AKG
- Banned
Offline - Registered: 7/08/2015
- Posts: 375
Anselm Monologion
A while ago one of my teachers claimed that Anselm argued eveything has a cause for his argument for God. I told her this is not the case and I did some research about what Anselm actually said. I found this.
Looking at it I can see why she would get this impression, but I don't think this is the case. I'm having trouble identifying what Anselm is actually saying and could someone help me out with this?
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Anselm Monologion
Anselm relies on the, as stated, "one-over-many principle". While there may be issues with that principle, it is nothing like the claim that "everything has a cause" (unless I suppose you mean to include formal causes, though this isn't quite right either).
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Anselm Monologion
I can think of no traditional major thinker who actually does make that error.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- AKG
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/08/2015
- Posts: 375
Re: Anselm Monologion
Yeah I know that no theistic philosophers has made this stupid argument but when my teacher presented it to the class she claimed not only Anslem did Aquinas did as well when he clearly stated in Summa Theologica(or Contra Gentiles) that this was not the case. I tried to tell her and the class this was a strawman but no one believed me.
- •
Thread Starter- Mysterious Brony
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/25/2015
- Posts: 172
Re: Anselm Monologion
Interesting, in one of my philosophy classes the instructor showed us Descartes' Ontological argument. Her formulation of the argument was horrendous and her formulation included the premise "Everything [including ideas] has a cause." Now I'm not a Cartesian, but I don't think Descartes was that stupid.
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Anselm Monologion
Wut? Here are two versions from the SEP:
Version A:
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
:. Therefore, God exists.
Version B:
1. I have an idea of supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
2. Necessary existence is a perfection.
:. Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists.
Whatever objections might hold here, there is no even minimally sane, let alone charitable reading of these that might either construe or derrive "everything has a cause" as a premise.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- AKG
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/08/2015
- Posts: 375
Re: Anselm Monologion
@Mysterious Brony
In my case it was in a highschool TOK class with a non-philosopher teacher, but the fact that you encountered this strawman in an actual philosophy class makes me worried about the status of modern day philosophical academia. In fact before I graduate I'm going to make a powerpoint for all my TOK teachers about the cosmological arguments to show them what it actually says and so they don't repeat this bull to future students.
- •
Thread Starter- Mysterious Brony
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/25/2015
- Posts: 172
Re: Anselm Monologion
AKG wrote:
@Mysterious Brony
In my case it was in a highschool TOK class with a non-philosopher teacher, but the fact that you encountered this strawman in an actual philosophy class makes me worried about the status of modern day philosophical academia. In fact before I graduate I'm going to make a powerpoint for all my TOK teachers about the cosmological arguments to show them what it actually says and so they don't repeat this bull to future students.
Well, firstly, don't get the impression that philosophy professors will always teach natural theology caricatures. As far as I am concerned, any philosopher can make mistakes regarding someone's position. Secondly, I remember taking an intro to philosophy class in some other secular college and the Thomistic arguments (Second Way) were treated more fairly. I think the professor embraced a secular worldview, but he seemed like a nice guy and was more balanced than other secular philosophers.
- Etzelnik
- Member
Offline
- From: New Jersey
- Registered: 6/28/2015
- Posts: 337
Re: Anselm Monologion
This is why I don't plan on including any sort of philosophy in my degree. What's to be gained from some ignorant professor that I can't gain studying on my own?
Noli turbare circulos meos.