h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The version of the OA that I've attributed to Anselm is defintetly the most widespread interpretation of what he writes in Proslogion (it is even taught on Philosophy syllabuses in schools). It is also the first version (at least, the first written version) of the OA, so is therefore relevent as an introduction to the OA as a whole.
Descartes' OA is included as a contrast to Anselms' OA, as it is shorter and IMHO easier to understand.
This entry is not intended to be a definitive be-all and end-all of the OA as it is a far to large a topic for a single entry. It is my understanding that this is not a requirement of Guide Entrys to be that in-depth, as most people don't want an article that is ultra-specific.
I considered letting Anselm speak for himself, but partly I was unsure of the copyright issues, and also the entry is long enough as it is as it stands. That's why I linked to Anselm's Proslogion rather than quoted it.
I'm perfectly happy to mention though, that the Proslogion is open to interpretation though.
Rgds,

Kenrick

Entry: The Ontological Argument - A764624 (because it's a new page)

Anselm's been dead for ages - he's not in copyright. And I do think you'd be better off using his words rather than whatever schools might teach. Like you say, the interest in Anselm's OA is because he invented it - so I want to read what he wrote, not what some 20th century school teacher thinks he meant when he wrote it.



Sure, I didn't expect the entry to be-all and end-all - I did say "overview", after all And to be fair, that's pretty much what you've got. I'm just concerned that, for an overview, you focus a little too much on these two versions, so that a reader might read your entry and think that sie now knows about the OA (I know I did, initially) whereas really sie only knows about two specific versions of the OA. Perhaps it just needs another mention in the conclusion. *shrug*

> "it has survived attacks by some of the greatest minds in philosophy so is not as easily defeated as it might seem"

What do you mean by 'survived' here? It's not clear to me whether you mean it's logically survived (meaning that the attacks failed to defeat it logically) or that it's survived as an idea (meaning that some people will believe any two-bit argument if it confirms their prejudices). From context it feels like you're saying it's survived logically - but I think that's a matter of opinion, rather than fact.

-M

>that a reader might read your entry and think that sie now knows >about the OA
Ok, fair point but I think that my sentance in the intro covers it:
"There are many different formulations of the OA, but the two most famous versions are those of St. Anselm of Canterbury and Descartes".

I'll stick in the Proslogion quote, and say that it can be interpreted/paraphrased as the bulleted points.

>It's not clear to me whether you mean it's logically survived >meaning that the attacks failed to defeat it logically) or that it's >survived as an idea (meaning that some people will believe any two->bit argument if it confirms their prejudices).

By this, I mean both. Admittably, everything is ultimately opinion. It is my opinion that it is a fact that the argument has survived logically, but it is also my opinion that the world exists. It is impossible to prove either of the two, but some would disagree with the former, whilst the vast majority would agree with the latter. Kant's and Gaunilo's criticisms have indeed come very close to logically disproving the argument, but they didn't quite get there.
It is undoubtable that it has indeed survived as an idea but your description that "some people will believe any two-bit argument if it confirms their prejudices" is maybe a bit harsh.

In the conclusion I'll state that this point is open to debate.

Rgds,
Kenrick

I've made some changes to it. Hope it's to your liking.

Kenrick

Hi Kendrick,

I just read the second half - glad I waited until today, it would have fried my brain last night!

It's a brave researcher who lets loose a philosophical proof of the existence of God in PR! Chapeau!

Personally, though no expert, I think you have done a good job. I am not convinced by the argument itself, but I think you present it well and balance the entry with the 'other side' of the question. Even going as far as noting that many people believe in God *without* accepting this particular 'proof' - Good old TA, eh!



one question on the content - how is it possible to use the verb 'to be' in relation to something, without assuming it exists?

You see what i mean?

'Winne the Pooh *is* a bear who wears a T-shirt, talks to young boys and likes snaffling sticky, sweet bee-related by-products.'

but the first thing you say is that 'Winne the Pooh *is*...

It took cogito ergo sum just to prove that *anything* *is* - and it only takes as far as ourselves (sing) [sorry Luce - i haven't adopted your system yet! ]

then he goes and just assumes that if *I* *am*, then *God* must *be* too, coz *I* defined *God* as etc.

I don't like it, myself. but at the end of the day this entry does not seek to convince but to present, and as such I think it has a good chance of going in as it stands.



The only thing is, I seem to recall you asked about Uni projects and Peer Review. Well, there is a 'rule' that Uni project entries should not go through PR at all. There has been some discussion of this in the context of the Writers' Workshop, which is not working too well, to say the least!

I have a ton of mostly finished pieces that I'd love to get some feedback on, but they are all sposed to be for a uni proj. So for now they are languishing in WW.

When it comes down to it, I feel that it would have been a shame not to put this through PR and get some feedback. If you want to hold it back for your proj, you could just take it out when you feel that it is in danger of being picked.



I seem to be in expansive mood today, so sorry if I drifted there...

good luck with this and future writings -

seeya
spiff

Yeah - I did see that bit in the intro, but it didn't seem enough to me. It's partly because in (eg) the history you talk about later people reviving interest in the OA, which kind of implies they didn't really add much to it, and hence their contribution can be ignored. That's just the impression I got from the entry - Anselm's and Descartes' versions are important, and everything since then has just been a footnote.

I like the change you've made to the conclusion. You're right: it is open to debate.

> "It's a brave researcher who lets loose a philosophical proof of the existence of God in PR"

Indeed. A517646 would be mine on Pascal's Wager, and would be a good example of why you SHOULDN'T try and be comprehensive...

interesting entry on the Pascal thing, Luce!

From now on, I'm gonna be very suspicious of anyone in a purple Nike jumpsuit!



seeya
spiff

I still don't like the way you've dealt with Anselm's argument. It's a shame, because I like the bit on intentions and that on criticisms and defences. But the central bit... no. For a variety of reasons:

You start the quote at "In fact, it so undoubtedly exists" leaving the reader free to speculate what the heck 'it' might be. It seems that you start it late?
There's another translation here: http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/anselm.htm

"almost universally accepted" - really?? The Stanford article details five different interpretations by five different sets of philosophers, and doesn't mention that any is universally accepted. I'll agree that your steps 1-7 are a reasonably common version of the OA, but I don't see that they are *Anselm's* OA, nor do I see that they are 'almost universally accepted'.

It seems to me that this is a misattribution - just like people frequently misattribute quotes (did Kirk ever actually say 'Beam me up, Scotty'?). A brief search reveals people attributing all kinds of things to Anselm - talking about possible worlds here, talking about 'the greatest possible being' there, and more besides. I don't buy your claim that there's philosophical consensus - not without evidence, anyway.

Sorry,
-Martin

Ok, if the "universally accepted" is bugging you that much, then I'll get rid of it. You seem skeptical, so this probably won't help, but every debate, discussion and any other time that I've come across the OA, the version that I call 'Anselm's OA' is what is accepted as being written or what Anselm meant in Proslogion.
I'll modify the quote too in order to start it earlier.
This is probably me, inferring what you say in some twisted way, but you appear to me to be very 'anti-OA'. Can I just know that you're not getting your opinions on the OA and your opinions about the article mixed up?
As for the central part of Anselm's argument, I'd like to keep it. If this means that this article is relegated to the Sin Bin, then so be it. Send it thattaway.

Kenrick

Well, if it *is* nearly universally accepted, then fine! It's just that this seems to go against the literature. I mentioned the Stanford article before: here's another: http://www.quodlibet.net/jowers-anselm.shtml - in it Dennis Jowers claims that Anselm proposes six different arguments.

You're right: I certainly don't believe that the OA is a valid logical argument (and it can be argued that neither Decartes, nor Anselm, intended it as such). That's probably completely clear from my posts here - I've not tried to hide it. But that's not why I don't like the way you've dealt with Anselm. If it makes it better, I do like the way you've dealt with Descartes' OA: there's no debate over what Descartes meant, so your 1-2-3 step is fine.

Maybe if I provide an example of how I'd deal with it, that'd help? It'd certainly be a little more positive... I'll see what I can do. I'm not saying that your treatment is *wrong* - more that I think it takes liberties with the original that I personally wouldn't want to take. More a question of style than anything, perhaps.

Regardless of which, I'll endeavour to move discussion of the OA itself, as distinct from discussion of this entry, to a thread under the entry, and keep PR clear of it.

No, he said "Scotty, beam me up"

told you!

( A768189 )

*did* you want this to be a University project? if so then you ought to submit it as shown here: <./>University-recruit</.>, and remove the thread from PR(if you look on the Peer reveiw pages of links, yours should have a 'remove entry' link somewhere around it).

...there should be a 'still' in there somewhere...

*poof*

That was my brain exploding at 1:15 in the morning.

Very well written, I feel. Sparked a most interesting conversation between my friend and I (I shared with him some of the arguments, and we picked them apart ) and now my brain is completely frazzled. So while I don't agree with the argument per se, I thought you handled the entry quite nicely. (This of course, reading after everyone else made their suggestions. Just wanted to thank you for spurring some much avoided brain activity )

Shame this entry's been removed from Peer Review