A Theory Of Ontology And A Position On The Problem Of Universals Essay

In this paper, I will deliver a reconstruction of Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God, and its adequacy for the existence of the greatest conceivable being. I will establish this by proving that Anselm's premises are sound and that the deductive arguments follow through a valid conclusion.

In this essay, I will take into account Russel and Coplestone's debate about the Metaphysical Argument. I will be arguing my opinion that Russel's view on the matter is right. First, I will briefly discuss both philosopher's take on the argument before I begin discussing my reasons for picking Russel. I will also take into consideration what someone taking Coplestone's side might respond to my opinions and defend myself.

The formation of the Salvation Army changed the lives of many people. The Salvation Army is a Christian-based organization created by William Booth, whose goal is to help those in need. Before the Salvation Army was created, poverty was a serious issue. Specifically in England, where it originated. Today, the Salvation Army still manages to help people in any way they can.

There is a human organism located exactly where you are located. Eric Olson argues that you are identical to that organism. This view is known as animalism. His “thinking animal” argument takes the following form: (1) There is a human animal where you are located; (2) If there’s a human animal where you are located, it is thinking; (3) The only thing thinking where you are located is you; and (4) So, you are a human animal. One argument, which exhibits parallel reasoning and boasts premises motivated in the exact same way, may be employed to resist Olson’s argument. In this paper I will show that this argument, which I will now call the Guanilo-Style argument, is structurally

Anselm’s ontological argument is historically important because it was among the first arguments for proving the existence of God. His argument had a considerable influence on the populace at the time and received both praise and criticism. His argument also led to the development of counterarguments and other theories for God’s existence or non-existence from other philosophers. Anselm’s ontological argument is still relevant today because it allows us to have a glimpse into the mindset of one of history’s most influential philosophers, and it allows us to develop our own arguments from that.

Strengths of the ontological argument, prima facie, are rather superficial and do not withstand objection if the argument is further probed and examined. Therefore, I do not see much strength in the argument itself, but in Descartes’ formulation of it. Firstly, of the few strengths that are initially brought to mind, the argument employs succinct propositions and does not rely upon evidence

The existence of God is a much debated philosophical argument that has mystified philosophers since the age of the ‘Enlightenment.’ Many of the different arguments put forth and analysed though, have not adequately proven God’s existence. Although in order to move forward, failed arguments must be studied to ensure that mistakes are not repeated. One such argument is the Ontological Argument.

With representation, constructionists argue we use signs, organized into languages of different kinds, to communicate with others (O 'Shaughnessy & Stadler , 2012, p. 406). Languages can use signs to symbolize, stand for or reference objects, people and events within reality (Hall, 1997, p. 25). Meanings are constructed through signifying practices (O 'Shaughnessy & Stadler , 2012, p. 406), but we cannot

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is an a priori argument that aims to demonstrate that God’s real-world existence follows necessarily from the concept of God. In Meditation V of Discourse on Methods and Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes presents his version of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. In this essay, I will argue that this argument fails because necessary existence for a concept does not entail its real world existence.

One consequence of viewing ontology and identity as relative is that properties and universals hardly seem much more problematic. Although universals obviously do not exist on a fundamental level, I think both David Lewis and David Armstrong provide helpful suggestions on the scope of universals in practical discourse.

It is the purpose of this essay to examine both Descartes’ Cogito argument and his skepticism towards small and universal elements, as well as the implications these arguments have on each other. First, I will summarize and explain the skepticism Descartes’ brings to bear on small and universal elements in his first meditation. Second, I will summarize and explain the Cogito argument, Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” (it should be noted that this famous implication is not actually something ever said or written by Descartes, but instead, an implication taken from his argument for his own existence). Third, I will critique the line of reasoning underlying these arguments. Descartes attacks

In this essay, I will discuss the basic history of the ontological argument. This history will be narrowly focused within the framework of the problems it poses for Heidegger. The emphasis will be placed on explaining how Heidegger extracts from, and then extends, Immanuel Kant 's argument that, “being is not a real predicate.” It is my contention that through a proper analysis of Heidegger 's project in part one of The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, the main theory of Heidegger 's philosophy viz., Being, by itself, cannot be being, because being itself, is not an entity, can be better apprehended.

only an ontological debate about what existed in the world, but also one deeply tied to the

In this paper, first I am going to introduce the criterion of verifiability. With the help of the criterion of verifiability, Ayer is able to test whether any sentence has factual significance or not. He then concludes that metaphysical propositions lack factual significance because they fail to satisfy even the weaker sense of verifiability in principle. Ayer proceeds to argue that metaphysical propositions are nonsensical since they neither have factual significance nor belong to the category of a priori propositions. This argument is mainly successful as to eliminate metaphysics from sensible knowledge, except there are two parts susceptible to attack. One may argue that the process of applying the criterion of verifiability to

Religion is the shared collections of transcendental beliefs that have been passed on from believers to converts, that are held by adherents to be actively meaningful and serious and either based on: formally documents doctrine, or established cultural practises [1]. Religion in philosophy presents many quandaries and theories surrounding the existence of the “supreme being” God with arguments concerning the universe’s existence, and humans’ ability to understand the nature, intentions and involvement of God. The main argument focused on throughout this essay is the ontological argument, claiming that once humans understand the concept and idea of God, humans should therefore see that God must exists. Ontology focuses on a Priori; knowledge that is independent of all experiences. The ontological