the "ontological argument" is what you're referring to in the beginning of your post. i agree with with you in not argreeing with it at all.
"The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D."... just because i particularly like what i've read by c.s. lewis.
kev - we can realize ideas that are, necessarily, the apotheosis of a form or class - the idea of a chair, for instance, or of a dog. now, nothing will ever realize that idea completely. no one will ever draw a real circle, and one won't ever be found in nature. no ideas exist in the sensible, physical world. but they exist in the intellectual, conceptual world - and the flying human is one of them. these ideas are perfect forms, many of which have physical analogues. it's just that some ideas are further from being realized than others. but everything that is conceivable exists on some level. getting into some ideas of physics, everything that's conceivable (and probably everything that isn't) is possible (what with some of the infinite-universe theories and all).
i'm not very familiar with ontological arguments. sorry.
you missed the point. "that thing" doesn't exist except in idea. that's the problem. people desire physical objects that equal these ideas, but all they'll ever get in the physical sense is the analogues, because perfection can only be realized in thought seperated from physicality and the senses. ideas can be apprehended in intellection, however. but that grasping isn't what you guys want. the point, however, is that the idea - the form - exists, and that is what is desired, regardless of the presence of its physical analogue.
Comments 8
the "ontological argument" is what you're referring to in the beginning of your post. i agree with with you in not argreeing with it at all.
"The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D."... just because i particularly like what i've read by c.s. lewis.
for more info: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
i haven't read the page myself, that's just where i found the quote.
to be honest, i'm not sure what c.s. lewis had to say about the matter, but i'm about to try to find out here: http://brindedcow.umd.edu/236/lewis.html
Reply
i'm not very familiar with ontological arguments. sorry.
Reply
an analogue of "that thing" would not be "that thing" at all, if you catch my drift. (and kev's drift.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment