Anselm’s Ontological Argument and Hume’s Empiricism
Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Proslogium
The show exhibited in the work Proslogium is based on the following assumptions:
- The idea of God given by revelation (by the Holy Scriptures)
- Logical identity of the real existence in thought and there really is (ser = to think), and
- God’s existence as an attribute or perfection of its essence.
The ontological argument has the following structure:
a) The Problem:
The argument proceeds on the simple concept of God to prove its existence. Even the one who denies God and the fool of Psalm XIII, who said in his heart: God does not exist, has an idea or concept of God because there is no denying one thing you do not have any idea.
b) Starting Point of the Argument:
The fool understands the idea of something over which you cannot think of anything more.
c) First Step:
The fool must accept that what it means exists in the understanding.
d) Second Step:
But the maximum conceivable there might not only understanding, but must also exist in reality. In fact, if it only existed in the mind then the maximum would be unthinkable, a contradictory concept, because the maximum imaginable would be overtaken by another maximum conceivable that also exists in the mind and exists in reality.
e) Conclusion:
Therefore, exists in the understanding and in reality something than which nothing greater can be conceived.
Thus,
- The concept of God is a Being greater or more perfect than that which is unthinkable.
- It must be such, not only in the mind, because if so, you can still think of a more perfect or more in addition to exist in thought, existed also in reality, which is contradictory.
- Therefore, God exists.
Hume
Impressions and Ideas
Impressions meet the current feelings that affect our external senses and perceptions. They are heavy, strong, and lively (sensations, passions, emotions). An example would be the impression of the current view of a landscape.
Ideas, however, are internal representations, weak, pale, affecting the internal senses and understanding. They are only copies or images of the impressions faded as the spirit has the thought processes and reasoning. An example of an idea would be the memory of the landscape.
They result from the operation of the mind on the data previously obtained from the impressions. The ideas are images of the impressions that we have in mind to remember or think about them.
Between feeling and thinking, or between impressions and ideas, there is no more difference than the “degree of force and liveliness with which [they are] impressed [on] the spirit and enter our thought or consciousness.” So there are no innate ideas, as the primary material of our knowledge are the impressions or sensations. All our ideas come from impressions; they meet some impression received from our senses, which are weak and faded images.
Simple and Complex Ideas: Laws of Association of Ideas
Both impressions and ideas can be simple or compound (complex).
a. Simple ideas emerge to break the perception, for example, an apple, an indivisible set of impressions such as color, smell, taste, etc. Simple ideas do not support distinction or separation.
b. Complex ideas are formed by combination, aggregation, or grouping of simple ideas, not haphazardly or arbitrarily, but under the “partnership”, which is a trend that governs the combination of simple ideas.
c. The association of ideas. For complex ideas to form in the mind, we need simple ideas to unite, be associated. Mental association is governed by three rules or principles: Similarity and dissimilarity, spatiotemporal contiguity, and cause and effect relationship. According to Hume, the force of attraction between the combined ideas is proportional to the distance or proximity between the terms has partners (this reminds us how this law of cognitive psychology is based on physical laws of Newton).
By classifying the elements of knowledge in impressions and ideas, Hume was laying the foundations of radical empiricism. With this approach, in effect, introducing a clear-cut criteria for deciding on the truth of our ideas: Do we want anyone to know whether an idea is true? Very simple: we check whether this idea came from some impression. If we can point out the corresponding impression, we are facing a real idea, otherwise, we are facing a sham. The limit of our knowledge is therefore that of our impressions.
a. Types of Knowledge and Classification of the Sciences
Relations of ideas Such relationships are formulated in propositions tautological (analytic and necessary). Its truth can be known a priori. May be discovered by the mere operation of understanding. Is the proper formal deductive sciences (arithmetic, algebra, and geometry). And are governed by the principle of contradiction.
Questions of fact. The truth of these propositions is only known ex post and have no justification other than the prints. They represent the world of facts, to Him belong the empirical sciences or inductive science: natural science, moral philosophy, and science of man. There is no proof, but proof and probability. Physical or natural sciences dealing with issues of fact and value only insofar as limited to past experiences. There is no guarantee (or even the principle of causality, as we shall see) that the future must be identical to the past. On the other hand, as opposed to any issue of fact is always possible, and therefore cannot lead to certainty but only a probability, that is, we start with factual evidence on which interpretations venture.
Cartesian Metaphysics
Cartesian metaphysics undertakes two jobs: first, establish a first truth quite evident, from which we can deduce everything else from it, and secondly, build a deductive system of explanation of reality based on the idea of substance.
A. Finding the First Evidence. Methodical Doubt. The Thinking Self.
We said before that we can only base our philosophy on evidence, that is, ideas clear and distinct ideas certain beyond a shadow of a doubt because science should only contain evidence. How to proceed? Descartes chose the path of doubt: doubt everything to see if there is anything that can resist all doubt, something that remains indubitable and certain.
Now, how to understand and apply the doubt?:
1) The question as a method. Descartes used doubt just to seek the truth. Doubt everything is just a procedure to find an indubitable truth. Descartes, then, is not a skeptic at any time. Doubt is not for him the ultimate mindset, not even the initial position: part of the confidence in the possibility of attaining truth. Thus, your question is just a methodical doubt. Skepticism is certainly methodical (applied systematically) and methodological (procedure for truths safe).
2) How to apply the doubt? At all. (Duda universal) to all beliefs, especially those that seem more solid and obvious. If it is possible to doubt them, it is necessary to leave them at the moment aside (although be recovered later, once confirmed) that are not suitable for support of metaphysics. Should it beliefs also apply to practical life, such as morals and politics? We deduce that yes, since Descartes wants to redo all the knowledge, practical and theoretical. However, provisionally considered appropriate to continue with our ways to find its foundation, its rationale (Duda provisional).
3) Implementation of the doubt to the foreground:
i) Firstly, for the sensitive knowledge:
(1) All knowledge that comes from the senses is doubtful given the poor reliability means we often senses and if we have misled even so only once presumably always deceive us. The only question that we can deceive eliminates and ensuring absolute certainty of the evidence.
(2) It could well be what happens in dreams, in which we take as real things and events exist except in our imagination, and we take them as real even we are scared by them. It may be that our waking life itself must be a sleep.
ii) Secondly, we also doubt whether it purely rational knowledge.
Even so, even in dreams, mathematical truths do not cease to be. Two plus two equals four, let’s think awake or asleep. And here comes more Descartes far in the implementation of the doubt: it is conceivable, although remote probability, the existence of an evil spirit of extreme power and intelligence that strives to induce error. This hypothesis is equivalent to assuming evil genius: perhaps my understanding is that nature that is necessarily and always wrong when it plans to capture the truth. If anything the hypothesis, it is questionable.
But then if all knowledge of both sensible and rational origin: “There is not any longer knowledge free from doubt? Do we get any evidence? The question, then, seems to have eliminated all faiths, and skeptics would be right! But here there is light: I can believe that there the world, or God, or mathematical truth … however, little doubt resists am doubting, and doubt have to think, and think, there: I think, therefore I am. This truth can withstand all the doubts. And is the one truth I have.
But the think therefore I am (cogito, ergo sum): What kind of knowledge is?
1) It is not a deduction such as: Anyone who thinks there is, I think, therefore I exist, ie reasoning. It is not that. Is a mental intuition: I sense a connection between my thinking needed and my existence. I sense, without any deduction, my inability to think without my existence.
2) This is a clear and distinct idea: An idea that requires immediate evidence.
3) And is the only truth that I have, for now, but an immutable truth: I served as the fulcrum on it, lifting the whole edifice of knowledge.
4) The evidence I have reached my own self as clear and distinct idea, I found that the clear and can achieve different, and should become standard for new knowledge.
And what could say about what is the self? For now, nothing but reality is a thing or think, and Descartes to think exercise means a conscious doubt, feel, think, imagine … But in no way I can say that I have or be a body because such a thing for me is still doubtful, not obvious. Only I can say I am and I exist as thought. I am a thinking thing, a being (substance) thinking (res cogitans). The nature or essence of the self is thought. And the ways of thinking may be: affirm, deny, imagine, feel.
Modern Philosophy: The Cartesian rationalism. 8
But if it is clear that there may affirm, deny, imagine or feel, is not that what states, imagine or feel, be true, unless one thing at the moment: that I exist and I think.
By the same token, I cannot say either the existence of World or of God.
B. The Affirmation of God’s Existence and its Nature.
Before proceeding further with the deduction, it is worth pausing to take stock and Descartes inventory of the items that we have to carry it out. This balance shows us that we two elements:
a) the thought and activity (I think) and
b) the ideas he thinks the self.
When I say: I think the world exists, evidenced the presence of three factors: the self thinking, which undoubtedly occurred, the world as a reality external to thought, whose existence is doubtful and problematic, and the ideas of world and existence.
This analysis concludes that Descartes thought and ideas always think that such ideas are so only in my thoughts, so I cannot pass immediately from the world in my mind the idea reality outside world thought. But how to ensure that the idea of a worldwide are reality: the world?
Let us, then, of ideas. Should be subjected to a careful analysis to try to discover if any of them helps us to break the circle of thought (until now I have just as sure that I and my existence is obvious) and go to extra-mental reality. In this analysis, Descartes distinguishes between three types of ideas or content of my thoughts:
Adventitious ideas, ie those that appear to come from outside our expertise (ideas man, tree, colors, etc.)..
Ideas factitious or fictitious, that is, those ideas that builds our imagination from other ideas (the idea of a horse with wings, for example).
It is clear that any of these ideas can serve as a starting point for the existence of extra-mental reality: the adventitious, because they seem to come from outside the sensory awareness, and therefore, its validity seems to be questioned and it is still doubtful the existence of external reality our thinking, the factitious, because being constructed by the imagination based on knowledge sensitive, its validity is questionable.
There are, however, certain ideas (few, but of course, the most important) that are neither adventitious or factitious. Now if you cannot come from outer experience, nor are they constructed from other, what is its origin? The only answer possible is that thought itself possesses, ie are innate. (Here we are at the fundamental affirmation of rationalism that the primitive ideas from which has to build the edifice of our knowledge is innate). Innate ideas are, for example, the ideas of thought and of existence, or are built by me or taken from the experience any external, but I find them in my thinking self.
Among innate ideas, Descartes discovered the ideas of infinity and perfection, which is quick to identify with the idea of God (God = infinite and perfect). The idea of God can be neither adventitious or fictitious. I only need to consider how I acquired this idea. Well I have not received from the senses, and I have never been presented unexpectedly as the ideas of sensible things when these things have, or appear to do so, the organs of my senses. Nor is pure fact or fiction of my mind therefore not in me to increase or decrease in anything. And therefore it is not to say that like the idea of myself, was born with me from the moment that I have been created.
Meditations. Meditation third.
But it remains to prove that this idea (God), a content of my thought, accounts for extramental reality (God). That is, besides being able to think the idea of God (in me), I can also affirm the objective reality of God (not me).
Among the arguments used by Descartes two deserve special mention:
First, the ontological argument, taken from San Anselmo.
Second, Descartes reasons that if I have in my mind the ideas of infinity and perfection, of an infinite and perfect reality I have come because I could not finite, imperfect for me to conceive same, and this is so because all it requires to be a proportionate reason: the idea of an infinity must correspond an infinite cause, an idea of perfection, a perfect cause.
Therefore God exists. What is it? Descartes argues that the essence or nature of God is infinity.
The existence of God as a guarantee of the truth of my ideas clear and distinct.
C. The Claim of the Existence of the World and its Nature.
a) The Concept of World and the Assertion of its Existence.
It means the whole world of material beings, outside my mind, including my own body.
In affirming the existence of the intuition I arrived, to the assertion of the existence of God, a deduction, to the assertion of the existence of the world (matter) we also deducted from the ideas of self and the definition of God as being good.
My thought contains ideas on the body: hot and cold sensations, sensations of color, size, etc.. But these ideas are adventitious, sensory origin, confused. It is true I feel the cold may something, but it is obvious that something, that body which I think comes from the cold, there. In these subjective and non-quantifiable qualities, Descartes and Galileo referred to as secondary qualities. Now However, I have in me a perception that accompanies all my perceptions and ideas of things to consider materials: the extension. Nothing I can feel as cold body, white, wide, if not as something extended. The extension cannot perceive it as a feeling, a sense-datum, neither can I pass because I can only represent the extent rationally, by thought: the extension think, not seen. This idea of extension as it is purely rational is innate, and for me, it is clear that nothing material can exist without being extensive.
Since God exists and is infinitely good and true, I cannot let that fool you into believing world wide reality exists, then the world exists. That is, God as being good and perfect, no can allow me to have the idea in my mind the existence of some length (which is a wise idea) and that this idea does not merit any extra-mental reality, that there is really something to be widespread. God appears as a guarantee that some of my ideas is for a world, a reality extramental. It should, however, noted that God does not guarantee that all my ideas appropriate one extra-mental reality (for example, may feel that cold, not really merit any extramental).
KANT
Transcendental Aesthetics
A. We analyze the power and sensitivity based (discussed how judgments are possible synthetic a priori in mathematics and geometry.
B. Kant sensitivity means the faculty of knowledge which makes possible the first ordination or synthesis of impressions or sense data. Cannot see anything without seeing it in one place space and at a point in time. Space and time are the general conditions necessary and transcendental (which are on the subject and makes the subject) that allow knowledge sensitive.
This synthesis is therefore between two components of knowledge:
a) I received the subject: The sensations or sense data coming from the object that affects knowing subject, and are characterized by diverse and be free of need and universality. Data are contingent, individuals and come from outside the individual.
b) What makes the subject: the intuitions or pure forms are space and time through phenomenal diversity which is ordered and arranged in some form and structure.
Space and time are for Kant a priori forms of sensibility, or pure intuitions or transcendental conditions of sensibility. Space is the a priori form of sensibility external. Time is the a priori form of inner sensibility. Ways: they are not content sense impressions (colors, sounds, etc..) but the form or the way we perceive all particular impressions (colors, sounds … we receive in space and time. A priori: no come from the experience. Intuition: are concepts of the understanding but data sensitivity. Pure: empty of empirical content, space and time coordinates are like two empty in which sense impressions are sorted. Transcendental: they’re on the subject that known, beyond the sensory data. Sensitivity: that is, of sensitive knowledge. Kant distinguishes between external and internal sensibility sensitivity. For our external sensitivity impressions from outside ourselves (colors, sounds, etc..) are ordered through space and time. For the internal sensibility are ordered only in time our internal impressions (experiences, imagination, memory, etc.)..
Sensitivity to sort through space and time sensory data produced phenomena or what is the same: experience.
C. Synthetic judgments a priori in arithmetic and geometry.
In addition to exposing the sensible conditions of knowledge, Kant deals on aesthetics transcendental mathematical knowledge. At first glance, it may seem strange that Kant deal of mathematics in dealing with sensitive conditions of knowledge: mathematics, from Of course, not made with the senses but with understanding. If Kant is concerned with Mathematics this time is because he thinks the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments in this science depends precisely on that space and time are pure intuitions.
Kant’s reasoning on this point can be summarized as follows:
1. Arithmetic Geometry and dealing, respectively, space and time. That Geometry deals with the properties of space does not seem at first, difficult admit. That arithmetic has to do with time is, however, strange statement. And so, according to Kant: the arithmetic deals with the numerical series (1, 2,3 … n) and this, in turn, is based on the temporal sequence (the two before the 3, then 1, etc.) The time is, according to Kant, the ultimate foundation of Arithmetic.
2. Mathematics can make a priori synthetic judgments because space and time are pure intuitions a priori:
a. Mathematics made judgments about space and time: however the space and are preconditions time independent of any particular expertise, then judgments of mathematics are a priori.
b. Mathematics made judgments about space and time, however, all objects of our experience are given in space and time, then in all objects of our experience necessarily meet the trials of mathematics, ie which are universal and necessary, without exception possible.
The Transcendental Analytic
A. What is intellectual knowledge?
The sensitivity confronts us with a multiplicity of phenomena, compared to multiple impressions in space and time. However, perceiving such a multiplicity of phenomena (colors, shapes, sounds, etc..) is not, without understanding them. If the charge is the proper function of sensitivity, perceived to understand what is the proper function of the understanding. It deals with Kant in the Analytic transcendental.
1. Role of understanding or understanding concepts is done through. Suppose ‘re seeing anything that is familiar to us, a house, for example. Our senses give us some sense impressions (colors, shapes, etc..) here and now. If someone asked what we are seeing, we say that we see a house. The concept of home is, therefore, the key that allows us to understand and interpret these sensory perceptions. Understanding the phenomena is able to refer to one concept. When we cannot relate the sense impressions of a concept, our understanding of those is blocked, impossible. This activity also to refer the phenomena to concepts is done provided through a trial: this is a house. Therefore the understanding or thought can be regarded as the power of the concepts or as the power of trials, the power judge.
2. Pure concepts or categories and empirical concepts. Empirical concepts are those coming from the experience (they are a posteriori). Concepts such as house, dog, mammal are empirical, based on their experience from observing the similarities and traits common to certain individuals. Apart from empirical concepts, the understanding has, according to Kant, certain concepts that do not come from experience and are, therefore, a priori: a these are referred to as spontaneous as the understanding of the place without referring them experience.
The role of the intellect is to make judgments, unify and coordinate data sensory experience through trials. Well, thought Kant, there are so many ways unify the data of experience, so many pure concepts as possible way of trial. Analyzing the potential to unify the experience in trials, Kant said could be drawn from 12 categories or pure concepts. Some of them are: unity, substance, cause, existence, necessity.
3. The pure concepts are transcendental conditions necessary for our knowledge of phenomena. This means that understanding the phenomena cannot think if it is not apply these categories, and therefore, the phenomena cannot be thought or understood without them. If we ignore them will not be but a set of impressions sensitive disconnected, disjointed.
4. The categories applied to only produce knowledge phenomena. Just as space and time be filled with the sense impressions, concepts to be filled with pure the unions from sensitive knowledge. Its application to something that does not come from the experience is illegitimate from the point of view of knowledge, ie not give us knowledge valid.
B. Synthetic judgments a priori in physics.
We already said that Kant is concerned in the transcendental analytic of two issues: the study of understanding (power of the concepts and judgments) and the possibility of producing synthetic judgments to priori in physics. The first question has already been stated above, and can be summarized as follows: a) the understanding by applying the pure concepts known to the phenomena, as given in experience; b) the categories or pure concepts only have validity when applied to phenomena, to what is given in experience.
Now we ask: how are synthetic judgments possible a priori in physics? The judgments express the essence of physical knowledge of nature are those that contain the category of causality (Eg, in any law of physics). These judgments have to be synthetic a priori.
1. The principle of causality is based on the category of cause. However, the category of cause (Like all categories) is a pure concept that comes from experience, but is experience prior to which it applies, then the validity of the principle of causality does not depend experience but which precedes it. It is, therefore, a priori.
2. As noted above, the phenomena can only be known by the understanding if it will apply the categories. As the principle of causality we apply it to understanding of phenomena, such knowledge is therefore strictly universal necessary.
THE Transcendental Dialectic
In the transcendental dialectic Kant addresses the possibility of metaphysics, as well as nature and workings of reason.
A. Impossibility of metaphysics as a science.
The fundamental question, as we noted at the beginning, Kant was deeply concerned: Is metaphysics possible as a science? Is answered negatively in the transcendental dialectic. Metaphysics, Understood as a set of propositions or judgments about the realities which are beyond the experience, is impossible, since the categories can only be used legitimately in its application to phenomena, as given in experience.
The application of the categories beyond the experience is logically illegitimate and results errors and illusions. Metaphysics ignores the distinction between phenomenon and noumenon. The mission of the transcendental dialectic is thus a critique of the right in its attempt to attain knowledge of things in themselves, what is beyond experience.
But if the application of the categories beyond the experience is logically illegitimate is also an unavoidable trend, in line with the very nature of reason that seeks to know what unconditional, ie that which is not conditioned by the experience. Hence the reason store inevitably extend their knowledge beyond the sensible, to ask questions and formulate responses about God, the soul and the world as a whole.
B. The operation and objectives of the reason.
Intellectual knowledge is not limited to making judgments, but also connects some trials with others, forming reasoning or reasoning. Take a simple example used by the same Kant:
All men are mortal
All researchers are men,
Then all researchers are fatal.
This simple syllogism shows how the conclusion, the trial investigators so Atout @ moral, is based on a more general view, the premise Atout @ men are mortal. (Researchers are one of the men, therefore, if these are mortal, those are).
Our reasoning may be, however, further: one would question the rationale for major premise, and so would the following syllogism:
All animals are mortal,
All men are animals
Of course, all men are mortal.
The trial in the first syllogism appeared in support of the conclusion is in this syllogism as grounded on a still broader view: Atout animals are mortal @.
Again we can go for an even broader view which might support the premise greater, and since animals are a part of the living, we can establish the following syllogism:
All living things are mortal
All animals are living,
Of course, all animals are mortal.
What we have done in this example we have been considering? The answer is simple reason seeks to find general judgments increasingly capable of covering a multitude of particular judgments they serve basis. This is the function of reason as result of their natural tendency to seek conditions or increasingly general concepts and, Ultimately, although recent concepts have phenomenal content.
C. The reason and ideas. I, World, God.
Our reason seeks to unify all our knowledge of recent concepts. These concepts are called ideas. For example:
1. all physical phenomena are intended to unify and explain by referring to an idea that World call, as the totality of all that exists outside of us;
2. All psychic phenomena is intended to unify and explained by referring to an idea I called.
3. God is the last concept, conceived as the cause of the self and the world. However,
a) God, self and world are only ideas in our reason and reality that we know.
b) Metaphysical theories attempt to explain things in themselves that make up what we call I, God and World, which, according to Kant’s analysis that we have developed, it is unauthorized or follow-discredited legal vocabulary as used by Kant supposed that the reason was become judge of itself, its possibilities. Clearly then, metaphysics, according to this author cannot be regarded as a science.