In this paper, I will be examining Descartes" ontological argument. I will begin with an explanation of the argument. I will next seek to establish that the argument relies upon the epistemic criterion that Descartes has laid out for himself I will consider several questions about the nature of the argument and the properties of some of the premises. Descartes seemed to believe that the ontological argument for God could be understood through pure intuition, but even if he thought it unnecessary, he provided two different versions of the ontological argument. The first version goes thusly: Descartes believed that anything that one could perceive clearly and distinctly as belonging to the idea of some thing was true of that thing. He believed
…show more content…
So, by its very nature, the supremely perfect being must exist. The ontological argument gives us ideas for some other properties that must be possessed by the supremely perfect being. This being must be omnipotent. If it weren 't, a more powerful being would be greater than the greatest being. Using this mechanism, St. Anselm identified other properties that are intrinsic to the nature of a supremely great being. This being must be ultimately just. This being must be ultimately good. This being must be eternal. Anselm goes on further, using the ontological argument to generate many other properties of the supremely perfect being ' ' '. The claim that existence can be a property of a supremely great being has been heavily disputed. Philosophers such as Aristotle. Bertrand Russel, Gottlob Frege, Immanuel Kant, and David Hume have all argued that existence cannot be a property '. Hume said that there was no impression of existence separate from the impression of the object said to hold the existence. Hume contended that we derive all of our ideas from impressions, and if there is no impression of existence, then existence cannot be a property. Kant argued that thinking that a thing is adds nothing to one 's conception of that thinc2_ and so existence cannot be a property! ' Russell and Frege had similar thoughts on existence. Neither thought that existence could be a property on an individual basis, but rather it was a
So, by its very nature, the supremely perfect being must exist. The ontological argument gives us ideas for some other properties that must be possessed by the supremely perfect being. This being must be omnipotent. If it weren 't, a more powerful being would be greater than the greatest being. Using this mechanism, St. Anselm identified other properties that are intrinsic to the nature of a supremely great being. This being must be ultimately just. This being must be ultimately good. This being must be eternal. Anselm goes on further, using the ontological argument to generate many other properties of the supremely perfect being ' ' '. The claim that existence can be a property of a supremely great being has been heavily disputed. Philosophers such as Aristotle. Bertrand Russel, Gottlob Frege, Immanuel Kant, and David Hume have all argued that existence cannot be a property '. Hume said that there was no impression of existence separate from the impression of the object said to hold the existence. Hume contended that we derive all of our ideas from impressions, and if there is no impression of existence, then existence cannot be a property. Kant argued that thinking that a thing is adds nothing to one 's conception of that thinc2_ and so existence cannot be a property! ' Russell and Frege had similar thoughts on existence. Neither thought that existence could be a property on an individual basis, but rather it was a