The Ontological Argument Revisited: A Reply to Rowe

• Authors: Eric Wilson
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Saint Anselm’s Ontological Argument is perhaps the most intriguing of all the traditional speculative proofs for the existence of God. Yet, his argument has been rejected outright by many philosophers. Most challenges stem from the basic conviction that no amount of logical analysis of a concept that is limited to the bounds of the “understanding” will ever be able to “reason” the existence in “reality” of any thing answering such a limited concept. However, it is not the intent of this paper to prove or disprove Anselm’s argument. Rather, in this paper we concern ourselves with arriving at a sound interpretation of Anselm’s leading critic—Immanuel Kant. Kant put forth perhaps the most vaunted criticism of Anselm’s argument. However, Kant has been perhaps the most misunderstood objector to Anselm’s argument. This paper confirms that charge, simultaneously offering what I believe to be a sound interpretation of Kant’s criticism.

Keywords

EN

God; Proof, Ontological; reality; critics;; Anselm, Saint; Kant, Immanuel

• Publisher: Akademia Ignatianum w Krakowie
• Journal: Forum Philosophicum
• Year: 2010
• Volume: 15
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 37-44

Dates

published

2010

Contributors

author

Eric Wilson

• University of California, Warren College, San Diego

References

• Anselm of Canterbury. St. Anselm: Basic Writings. Translated by Sidney Norton Deane. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1961.
• Kant, Immanuel. Critique of pure reason. Translated by Werner S. Pluhar, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1996.
• Rowe, William L. Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2007.

Identifiers

DOI

10.5840/forphil201015116

URI

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=53739332&lang=pl&site=ehost-live

URI

http://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=forphil&id=forphil_2010_0015_0001_0037_0044