By Jonathan Barnes (auth.)
Read Online or Download The Ontological Argument PDF
Similar logic & language books
This creation to modality locations the emphasis at the metaphysics of modality instead of at the formal semetics of quantified modal good judgment. The textual content starts off by means of introducing scholars to the "de re/de dicto" contrast, conventionalist and conceptualist theories of modality and a few of the major difficulties in modality, really Quine's criticisms.
Three in philosophy, and consequently in metaphilosophy, can't be in keeping with principles that keep away from spending time on pseudo-problems. after all, this means that, if one succeeds in demonstrating convincingly the pseudo-character of an issue by way of giving its 'solution', the time spent on it needn't be obvious as wasted.
This publication concentrates on argumentation because it emerges in traditional discourse, no matter if the discourse is institutionalized or strictly casual. an important techniques from the speculation of argumentation are systematically mentioned and defined with assistance from examples from real-life discourse and texts. the fundamental rules are defined which are instrumental within the research and review of argumentative discourse.
- Logic in Linguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics)
- Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations (S U N Y Series in Philosophy)
- The Conimbricenses: Some Questions on Signs (Mediaeval Philosophical Texts in Translation)
- Deflationism: A Use-Theoretic Analysis of the Truth-Predicate (Stockholm Studies in Philosophy, No. 29)
Extra info for The Ontological Argument
He claims that (7) cannot be used in this way; but, on the contrary, that seems to be the only likely use for it. Perhaps Cartwright thinks that (7) is merely a synonym for: (10) No cows are carnivorous. This is at best a queer way to construe (7); if it is a proper way, that only shows that (7) is an atypical existential. The conclusion of this cursory treatment oflogical predication is this: there is so far no good reason to suppose that existential propositions are not in subject-predicate form; and the type of argument traditionally used to show that they are not is based on a hallowed and hoary error.
11] passim); it forms part of a fairly sophisticated theory of language which has been admirably elucidated by Professor Henry ( esp. pp. 12-24). Since the Proslogion favours the third way of treating divine necessity (cf. 2), it is reasonable to interpret God's necessary existence in the Reply by means of that suggestion: 'That than which a greater cannot be imagined necessarily exists' thus means 'Nothing has the power to bring it about that that than which a greater cannot be imagined does not exist'.
G. 7- cf. 12-17; Matthews); and thirdly, he has an elaborate discussion of the logical modalities which is entirely innocent of psychologism (cf. below, pp. 25-6). There is no Modal Argument in Proslogion III. Nor, I may add, do sections II and III present complementary arguments to the same conclusion (Aquinas  I x 2; Charlesworth, p. 73); nor yet one continuous argument to the end that God's nonexistence is unimaginable. These and other interpretations of section III (see McGill, pp. 39-50) founder at once on the evidence of Anselm's text.