联系我们
我们只做按需定制化代写服务,绝对原创!
QQ:41806229 点击这里在线咨询代写
Email:admin@assignment.cc
网  址:http://www.assignment.cc/
支持Paypal、VISA、MasterCard、Discover等银行卡支付
Paypal支付
代写留学生作业,Anselm Descartes Religion
发表日期:2013-10-07 08:54:06 | 来源:assignment.cc | 当前的位置:首页 > 代写留学生作业 > 正文
Anselm Descartes Religion

Anselm and Descartes

The debate regarding the existence of God has lasted for centuries. Man’s quest to establish the validity of God’s existence remains ongoing till this day. Saint Anselm and Rene Descartes were two thinkers who left a lasting impression from their philosophical works on the existence of God. Both men strived to prove the existence of God using rational and logical argumentation. Stylistically they differ, yet both share a cohesion of interest in which their common objective is to use philosophical reasoning to derive an “Ontological Argument” which favors the existence of God.

Saint Anselm lived during 1033-1109, the prime of the Middle Ages. He was a devoted Christian who contributed significant works in theology and philosophy. As a faithful Christian, he yearned for a rational interpretation that proved the existence of God. The Augustinian phrase sums this idea; “faith seeking understanding” (Baird 322).

In Anselm’s “Proslogion” he develops the “Ontological Argument” attempting to prove God’s existence.

Anselm states that God is a being “in which nothing greater can be conceived.” He significantly quotes, the Psalms 13:1; “the Fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.”’ He addresses this issue because he wants to prove the relevance of his prior statement, “we believe you to be something greater than which nothing greater can be conceived.”

The Fool described in Psalms can comprehend this statement even if he is unsure that what he understands exists. Therefore, a major distinction is drawn by Anselm; “it is one thing for something to be in the understanding and quite another to understand that the thing in question exists” (Baird 325). Thus, the “Fool” can be convinced by his understanding that there is “something than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Anselm goes even further by arguing that “something in which nothing greater can be conceived” not only exists in the understanding, but can also be thought as existing in reality. Consequently, Anselm maintains, “without a doubt then there exists both in understanding and in reality a being greater than which nothing can be conceived” (Baird 325).

Anselm develops his argument further by claiming that because such a thing exists, that thing cannot be thought of as not existing. Moreover, an interesting point is made by Anselm when he says, “It is possible indeed to think of anything other than you as nonexistent.” In other words, Anselm is trying to say that all other things can be thought of as not existing, but God has a perfect existence in which it is impossible to claim nonexistent because then it would be paradoxical. The measure of Gods existence supersedes all others because nothing greater can be conceived.

Anselm once again discusses the fool who says in his heart that there is no God. Reason being, he wants to illustrate the connection between “to say in ones heart” and to think. The fool said in his heart that God did not exist, yet the same fool conceived a being greater than any other. Therefore, to say in ones heart is equal to thinking because to say in ones heart, one must first think. This also holds true for the reversal, if he does

not think, than he does not say it in his heart. Thinking is initiated in two senses according to Anselm. In the first sense, thinking is signaled by a word that describes the thing. In the second sense, thinking is created when one thinks of the actual thing itself. Thus, from the perspective of the first sense it can be true that God does not exist. From the second sense, the denial of the existence of God is impossible because the thing itself has been thought or conceived.

Since Descartes’ “Fifth Mediation” was written many years after Anselm’s “Ontological Argument” it becomes apparent, at least in one sense that Descartes refers indirectly to arguments established in Anselm’s “Ontological Argument.” This relationship or connection can be seen in both arguments as the idea of God’s “perfect existence.” Descartes however, in my opinion delves into the concept of perfect existence candidly. Whereas Anselm, attributes this perfect existence in his statement “we believe you to be something greater than which nothing grater can be conceived.” Regardless of the methods used they both attribute perfection to this supreme, eternal Being.

Additionally, Descartes argument regarding the existence of God is not presupposed by faith like Anselm’s. Rather, Descartes begins his argument in a different manner then Anselm, speaking nothing about prior faith in God’s existence. He begins the “Fifth Meditation” by explaining how he has the ability to conceive in his mind a vast array of different shapes and dimensions. Even if these figments which he has created within his mind do not actual exist outside of his mind, they still contain immutable and

eternal properties. A triangle is used by Descartes to elaborate upon this issue. He argues that even if the triangle did not exist outside of his mind it still contains indisputable properties. Therefore, once these properties are conceived clearly and distinctly they must be completely true.

Like the triangle, the idea of a supremely perfect being exists in both our mind and Descartes. This idea does not differ from that of the triangle in any sense because each contains a nature or property. Descartes clearly and distinctly observes that Gods existence belongs to his nature, like a figure or number whose nature belongs to that figure or number.

Descartes agrees that God can be thought of as not existing. This means, one can segregate his existence from his essential properties. Furthermore, this ability to separate existence and essence is also present within all other things examined according to Descartes. However, with closer inspection and with greater attention given to this notion Descartes discovered that, “we can no more separate the existence of God from his essence than we can separate from the essence of a rectilinear triangle the fact that the size of its three angles equals two right angles” (Baird 430). In other words, with other things we can separate the existence from the properties because the other things are not of a perfect being like God.

Both Anselm and Descartes both use the premise of God as not existing, to prove his existence. They formulate their argument in this way because with closer inspection they refute the thought of God not existing because God has a perfect existence, and to claim that a perfect Being does not exist in reality would be “self contradictory”

(Baird 430). Thus, according to Anselm and Descartes, a perfect Being must exist in both the mind and in reality since its existence is eternal, immutable, and perfect.

In addition, Descartes maintains that he cannot think of God without existence any more than he can think of a mountain without a valley. Even though a necessary characteristic of a mountain is that it be contiguous to a valley, “it doesn't follow that any mountains or valleys exist.” Similarly, even though a supremely perfect being possesses certain attributes, it does not coincide with the existence of that being. Consequently Descartes says, “From the fact alone that I cannot conceive God except as existing, it follows that existence is inseparable from him, and consequently that he does, in truth, exist” (Barid 430) This acknowledgment of Gods existence is made by Descartes namely because God “possesses all sorts of perfections”, existence being one of them.

Descartes then continues addressing an objection in regards to his prior argument. Consequently, he says that it is not necessary for him to suppose the thought of God, yet once he does think of God, then existence is necessary. This follows and is no different from it not being necessary for one to suppose something that is false. Descartes uses the inscription of a rhombus into a circle to illustrate this issue. “It is not necessary to think that all four sided figures can be inscribed in a circle; but if we suppose that I do have this idea, I am forced to admit that a rhombus can be inscribed in one, since it is a four sided figure, and by this I will be forced to admit what is clearly false” (Baird 431). Therefore,

to Descartes one must not say, that even though it is not necessary for one to think of God, when one does think of the idea of a supreme being you are necessarily attributing an array of perfections. Thus, once it has been recognized that existence is perfection, one must conclude that this Supreme Being actually exists. Therefore, a distinction has been made by Descartes; there are many differences between false assumptions and true innate ideas, namely the thought of God. According to Descartes, this idea is not “imaginary or fictitious” because God is the only thing that can be conceived as having a “true and immutable nature.”

There have been many attempts to refute the arguments of Anselm and Descartes. However, because of the rational and logical sequence that both follow in their arguments it has become increasingly difficult for others to prove these claims erroneous. Regardless, both men have provided invaluable documentation regarding the possibility of God’s existence in our minds and in reality. Even atheists find these arguments hard to refute because both thinkers cleverly used the thought of God as not existing, to prove that God, in his perfection does actually exist in our minds and in reality.

Work Cited

Baird, Forrest E., Walter Kauffmann. From Plato to Derrida. Forth ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003.

 

安瑟伦和笛卡儿
关于上帝存在的争论已经持续了几个世纪。人的追求,建立神的存在的有效性仍然持续,直到这一天。圣anselm和笛卡尔两位思想家留下了难以磨灭的印象,他们的神的存在的哲学著作。两人努力来证明上帝的存在,用理性和逻辑论证。文体不同,但他们都有着一个利益中,他们的共同目标是用哲学推理得出上帝存在的“本体论的争论” ,这有利于凝聚。
圣安瑟伦住在1033-1109期间,中世纪的黄金。他是一个虔诚的基督徒,谁贡献在神学和哲学的重要作品。作为一个虔诚的基督徒,他渴望一个合理的解释,证明了上帝的存在。奥古斯丁短语总结这个想法, “信仰寻求理解” (拜尔德322 ) 。
在安瑟伦的“ Proslogion ” ,他开发的“本体论的争论” ,试图证明上帝的存在。
安瑟伦上帝是一个“可以设想,没有更大的。 ”他明显引号,诗篇13:1 “傻瓜说,在他的心里,没有神。 ”他解决了这个问题,是因为他想证明他事先声明的相关性, “我们相信你能比也越大,可以设想的东西。”
诗篇中描述的傻瓜能够理解这一说法,即使他不确定,他明白什么存在。因此,主要的区别是制定安瑟伦“一件事要在理解的东西又是另一回事,了解的东西存在” (贝尔德325 ) 。因此, “傻瓜”可以确信,他的理解是“比也较大,可以设想的东西。”安瑟伦走得更远争辩说, “可以设想,没有更大的”不仅存在于理解的东西,但也可以被认为现实中存在的。因此,安瑟伦认为, “毫无疑问,那么存在理解和在现实中的一个的高于没有什么可以设想” (贝尔德325 ) 。
安瑟伦开发进一步声称,因为这样的事情存在,那件事不能被认为是不存在的,他的论点。此外,一个有趣的问题是由安瑟伦时,他说, “这是可能确实认为任何其他比你不存在。”换句话说,安瑟伦试图说,所有其他的事情可以被认为是即不存在,但上帝有一个完美的存在,它是不可能的要求不存在的,因为那将是自相矛盾的。措施取代所有其他的神的存在,因为没有什么可以设想更大。
安瑟伦再次讨论了傻瓜说,在他的心里,没有神。原因是,他想说明之间的连接“ ,说的心”,并认为。傻瓜说,在他的心中,上帝是不存在的,但同样的傻瓜构思了一个大于其他任何。因此,说的心等于思考,因为说的心,首先要想到。这也是如此,如果他不为反转
没有想到,比他不说,这在他的心里。思维是在两种意义上发起的,根据安瑟伦。的第一感觉,思维信号由一个词来描述的东西。在第二个意义上说,思想是建立当一个人认为实际的东西本身。因此,从第一感觉来看,它可以是真实的,上帝不存在。从第二个意义上,否定神的存在是不可能的,因为一直以为这件事本身或设想。
由于笛卡尔的“第五调解”被写入安瑟伦的“本体论论证”多年后,它变得明显,至少在一个意义上,笛卡尔是指间接在安瑟伦的“本体论的论据成立的论据。 ”这关系或连接可以被看到两种观点作为神的“完美的存在。 ”笛卡尔的想法然而,在我看来,深入研究了坦率的概念完美的存在。而安瑟伦,归功于完美的存在,在他的声明:“我们相信你是更大的东西比什么可以设想刨。 ”不管所采用的方法本至上,永远被他们两个属性完美。
此外,笛卡尔认为上帝的存在是没有信心像安瑟伦的先决条件。相反,笛卡尔然后安瑟伦以不同的方式开始了他的论点,讲什么关于事先信仰上帝的存在。他开始解释他如何有能力设想在他的脑海中,一个巨大的阵列的不同形状和尺寸的“第五沉思” 。即使在他的脑海里,他创造了这些虚构不实际存在他的脑海之外,他们仍然包含不可变的,
永恒的属性。三角形笛卡尔阐述这个问题。他认为,即使三角形不存在他的脑海之外,它仍然包含不争的性质。因此,一旦这些属性的设想清楚,明显,他们必须完全真实。
像三角形,一个无比完美的理念存在于我们的头脑和笛卡尔。这个想法并不在任何意义上的三角形不同,因为每个包含的性质或属性。笛卡尔清楚而明确地指出,神的存在属于他的本性一样,其性质属于这一数字或电话号码的数字或数量。
笛卡尔同意,上帝可以被认为是不存在的。这意味着,人们可以分开他的存在,他的本质属性。此外,这种能力的存在和本质分离也存在于所有其他的事情,根据笛卡尔检查。然而,仔细检查,更加关注这个概念笛卡尔发现, “我们没有更多的独立神的存在,他的本质比直线三角形的本质的事实,我们可以分开的大小,它的三个角度等于两个直角“ (拜尔德430 ) 。换句话说,其他的事情,我们可以分开存在从属性,因为其他的东西都不是一个完美的存在像上帝。
安瑟伦和笛卡尔都使用的前提下,神不存在,来证明自己的存在。以这种方式,因为他们制订他们的论点,仔细检查,他们反驳神的思想不存在,因为上帝有一个完美的存在,并声称在现实中不存在一个完美的“自相矛盾”
(拜尔德430 )。因此,根据安瑟伦和笛卡尔,必须存在一个完美的心灵和现实,因为它的存在是永恒的,不可改变的,和完善的。
此外,笛卡尔坚持,他不能认为神不存在任何超过他能想到的山没有一个山谷。尽管山的必然特征是,它是连续的一个山谷, “它并没有遵循任何的山区或山谷的存在。 ”同样,即使一个超级完美的存在具有一定的属性,它并不存在一致他这样。因此笛卡尔说, “从单独的事实,我可以不受孕神除了现有,它如下,生存是离不开他,因此,他不,说实话,存在” ( Barid 430 )神的存在的这一确认是提出通过笛卡尔即因为神“拥有各种完善的,存在就是其中之一。
笛卡尔然后继续解决的问候到他之前的说法提出异议。因此,他说,他假设上帝的思想,但一旦他不认为神的存在是必要的,它是没有必要的。在此之前,并没有什么两样没有必要为一个假设的东西,那是假的。笛卡尔使用一个菱形的题词成一个圆圈,来说明这个问题。 “这是没有必要的,认为所有四边数字可以接于一个圆,但如果我们想,我有这个想法,我不得不承认,可以刻在一个菱形,因为它是一个四边的身影,我将被迫承认显然是假的“ (贝尔德431 ) 。因此,
笛卡尔不能说,即使它认为神是没有必要的,当一个人想到一个至高无上的想法不一定归咎于数组完美。因此,一旦被确认存在是完美的,我们必须结束这个最高法院正在实际存在。因此,区分已经由笛卡尔错误的假设和真实的先天思路,即神的思想之间有许多差别。据笛卡尔,这种想法是没有“想象或虚构的” ,因为神是唯一可以被设想为一个“真正的和不可改变的性质。 ”
已经有许多尝试反驳anselm和笛卡尔的论点。然而,由于理性和逻辑顺序都遵循他们的论据,已经变得越来越困难,为他人证明这些说法错误的。无论如何,两人都提供了宝贵的文件,有关神的存在,在我们的脑海中,在现实中的可能性。即使是无神论者,发现这些论点很难反驳,因为这两个思想家巧妙地用上帝的思想不存在,证明,上帝在他的完美其实并不存在于我们的脑海中,在现实中。
著作被引
贝尔德福雷斯特大肠杆菌,沃尔特·考夫曼。从柏拉图到德里达。第四ED 。新泽西州: Prentice Hall出版社, 2003 。