In the piece of Ontological Argument, St. Anselm argues that being able to exist in both reality and in understanding is the best to humans. He specifically focuses on the topic of an omnient God. He does use a reducto in his argument, so part of the premises contradict, but this contradiction strengthens the proof for the conclusion. I agree with his point of view. St. Anselm refers back to the difference between conceiving in concept vs in realty, all though out his writing. With an example of a painter Anselm explains how a painter conceives what he is going to paint, but does not yet fully understand the painting; because he has not physically painted it yet (St. Anselm pg. 4). Translating to when the job is done, the painter can understand
…show more content…
This point leads into how willingness impacts understanding. People who don’t believe that fire and water are different, are not able to understand that they are. This connects to the existence of God, because,” if [we are] unwilling to believe that [God] exists, [we are] not be able to understand that God exists” (St. Anselm Pg: …show more content…
Anselm Pg: 7).
I agree with St. Anselm, when he says that conceiving in reality is better than just in thought. This is well demonstrated by his example of the painter. This example really shows the connection of how reality is better than conception. While this idea is found true by some, it has to be true for all. This is why he starts his argument with the view of the fool; which strengthens his argument. This works well, because we too may question if what we understand is true in reality as well. He takes the part of the fool only believing that God exists in conception, and uses it as the starting point of the proof of God.
At first when I recognized the contradiction in Anselm’s writing, I was confused, but as I contemplated his words, his use of a reduction really works for me. It works because he again sides with the “another side” which is against his argument. When saying the opposite of what is wanted to be proved, turns the minds of the reader to realize that the first premises are true, making it a sound
This point leads into how willingness impacts understanding. People who don’t believe that fire and water are different, are not able to understand that they are. This connects to the existence of God, because,” if [we are] unwilling to believe that [God] exists, [we are] not be able to understand that God exists” (St. Anselm Pg: …show more content…
Anselm Pg: 7).
I agree with St. Anselm, when he says that conceiving in reality is better than just in thought. This is well demonstrated by his example of the painter. This example really shows the connection of how reality is better than conception. While this idea is found true by some, it has to be true for all. This is why he starts his argument with the view of the fool; which strengthens his argument. This works well, because we too may question if what we understand is true in reality as well. He takes the part of the fool only believing that God exists in conception, and uses it as the starting point of the proof of God.
At first when I recognized the contradiction in Anselm’s writing, I was confused, but as I contemplated his words, his use of a reduction really works for me. It works because he again sides with the “another side” which is against his argument. When saying the opposite of what is wanted to be proved, turns the minds of the reader to realize that the first premises are true, making it a sound