Summary Of ' On What There Is '

Topic: Compare and contrast the concepts of determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism, as outlined in Chapter 4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of these positions? Which one do you believe is the most likely to be correct? Why?

Specific concepts, features and factors that do not change, regardless of what reality we may find ourselves in or how we choose to spend our lives. The absolute remains unchanged from the very start to the lateral end of the multiverse. Compared to the constants of the universe, these absolutes are far less measurable. Despite the fact that many still deny their influence over life in the material continuum, we are certain of their existence as a result of their relative counterparts. While we may observe their distinctive attributes as well as their cyclical effects, beneath the surface, they possess no distinguishable characteristics, they are featureless (as will be explained in greater detail in the following

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

In the book Everything’s an Argument by Andrea Lunsford, the first chapter makes a claim that any engagement of one person to another is an act of persuasion or argument. Lunsford says “When you say, “Hi, how’s it going?” in one sense you’re arguing that your hello deserves a response.” In reality, when a person greets another person, they are not demanding an acknowledgment or validation of their presence, rather they are typically exhibiting value towards the person they are greeting, or in some cases, they are showing respect towards that person. In fact, the etymology of the word “argument” entirely debunks Lunford’s claim that a greeting is in one sense an argument. The modern English word ‘argument’ comes from the Latin word ‘arguere’

The theoretical structure is utilized to provide propositions that narrow down and describe the concept in relatively concrete and specific terms

One of the criticisms of the ontological argument is by the monk Gaunilo. Gaunilo tries to use the same concept of Anselm’s argument to refute the claims he made. He tries to use the analogy of “The Perfect Island”. (1) A perfect island is an island after which nothing greater exist. (2)The perfect island exists in the mind. (3)The perfect islands exist in the mind and not in reality and can be conceived to exist. (4)To exist is better than not exist. Therefore, the perfect islands exist. Gaunilo’s perfect island is similar to the logical reasoning behind Anslem’s argument. He reasons that the thought of a perfect island can exist in the mind. The perfect island is one that which there is nothing greater. If the perfect islands exist in the

Since Plato, two mutually exclusive yet essential categories of reality have been posited, one of concrete particulars and the other being abstract universals. Particulars are “unproblematic,” but universals may be entirely extant in many positions with no influence on the universal itself. A particular “distinguishing mark is that is exhausted in the one embodiment, or occasion, or example.” (Campbell 298) Particulars are unproblematic because they are restricted to a single point at any given time, not like universals which exist in different locations and are wholly present in those instances. The number of examples which contain the abstract universals are not diminished in quality of the universal. Campbell posits that this “problem” can be alleviated if properties were not universal at all. There is a distinction between abstract and concrete which differs from the distinction between universals and particulars. This is because particulars and universals can both be abstract where only particulars can be concrete. The particulars that

In this section, I will explain the argument. If one accepts all of the premises of the argument to be true then we must accept its conclusion. The first premise of the argument states that God exists in the understanding (Rowe, 37). This is a true idea because somethings only exist in one’s understanding.

Guanilo of Marmoutier is among the main critics of Anselm, and argues that Anselm’s ontological argument would show the existence of all kinds of non-existent things. He uses the analogy of an imaginary Island, of which no greater island can be imagined. This island, because it is greater to exist in both reality, and the understanding, must be a real physical island.

     Many objections have been raised as to the validity and soundness of Anselm’s ontological argument. One of the most compelling and most famous objections was present by Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century. Kant found fault with Anselm’s premise that if something exists in reality, it is greater than if it exists in the understanding alone. According to this objection, “existence'; is not a characteristic or property. Therefore a thing’s greatness would depend solely on what properties it has; whether or not something exists in reality or only in the understanding does not affect its greatness in any way. For example, consider an imaginary one hundred dollar bill with all the same properties as a one hundred dollar bill that does exist in reality. The only difference between the real bill and the imaginary one is that the former

In Meaning and Reference , Hilary Putnam famously produced the twin-earth scenario to argue for semantic externalism (henceforth externalism), the view that the meaning of some expressions is partly determined external to the speaker’s mental states. In this essay I will first lay out Putnam’s argument for externalism. Then I will extend his scenario and show that externalism faces various problems. Lastly, I will cast doubt on Putnam’s idea that the essence of the term “water” is its molecular structure. Hence Putnam’s twin-earth scenario fails to establish externalism.

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.

The Ontological argument is an a priori deductive argument. That is, an argument relating to being, that is independent of prior knowledge of the subject and with a conclusion you must accept IF one accepts the preceding premises. St. Anselm of Canterbury presents the Ontological

Then concrete stage a big changing point in a child's cognitive development. It is the starting poin of logical/operational thought. The child is now to the point that they are mature enough to use logical thought/operations whre they can only apply it to physical objects and do some problem solving.

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.