Philosophy of the Medieval
Ages |
Response to Guanilo’s arguments
Medieval Theories and philosophies
Proslogium is an article written, by a philosopher Anselm in the middle ages. The purpose of this article is to prove the existence of God. I intrepeted the first four points to gain a better understanding of what philosophers were thinking about.
In the first point Anselm is saying to contemplate on the being God will cause one to cast aside all fears and concerns. Unless one believes in God he cannot understand God. Believing in God is a step toward understanding God. The main example Anselm use’s to illustrate this point is an example of a painter when he decides to paint something he does not know how it will turn out, but once it is finished he sees and understands. Anselm is saying once a person believes in God, he see’s God and understand’s.
The second point Anselm makes is about those who say there is not God. Anselm in my opinion is saying a fool can understand the concept of a being, but refuses to acknowledge it exists in reality. But when something exists in understanding it can also exist in reality. If something can exist on understanding alone it can exist in reality alone as well.
The third point Anselm is making that God cannot be concieved not to exist. If it is possible to have a concept that does exist, a being which nothing is greater thant, can be conceived to exist as well. The being of God can not be concieved not to exist, Whatever else that exists is secondary to the existence God.
The fourth point Anselm makes is that a rational mind can believe that there is a God, but a irrational mind cannot. To believe in your heart that there is a God is just the same as saying it. If a person is unwilling to believe a being exists, than a person will not believe an existence of a being greater than anything to be true.
In conclusion this is an analysis of the first four points in the Prosloguim. The role of philosophy in this case was to analyze the existence of God which is the foundation of religion in the middle ages. Anselm has proven that there is an existence of a being which has different names both today, and back than with different rictuals to worship this being.
In behalf of the fool was an article written in response to Anselm’s book Proslogium. The author is Guanilo a monk who read Anselm’s book and had a problem with it. Guanilo wrote a response to Anselm’s book. I analyzed points 1,2,4, and 6. I hope to gain a better understanding of how philosophers analyzed each other’s work. To start his response off Guanilo’s argument is if a person denies a being exists than he has already proven in his own mind that it does not exist. By denying this fact he understands that this being does not exist. In a person’s understanding he had proven in his own reality this being does not exist.
The second point Guanilo makes is if a being exist, I understand what is being said. To conceive of a being of a greater power a person must understand. A person cannot understand until he gains more knowledge and facts. By understanding it leads to existence in one’s reality.
Guanilo’s fourth point is if a person does not have knowledge of this higher power he cannot conceive of this being or understand. If a person cannot conceive he can understand that God does not exist. By understanding that God does not exist one cannot make the reality of God. If I can hear people talk of him and deceives others than God could be anyman. The word God is geared toward a reality. The concept of God stands alone. A person may not know the object, but the idea comes from the word. When the word is heard it can be understood. A person can understand and talk about a being greater than conceivable things.
In point six, Guanilo is giving an example of a lost island. If someone told Guanilo a lost island with rich resources existed, he could understand it. But if the person said it existed only by inference than Guanilo would have not reason to doubt that such an island existed. But in order not to look like a fool he would ask the man to hypothetically prove it. In the same way that Guanilo asks the man to prove the island exists, A person should prove hypothetically that a higher power exists.
In conclusion Guanilo has analyzed Anselm’s work, and pointed out the flaws in his thinking. At the end of his argument Guanilo compliments Anselm on what he though were positive aspects in the book. The role of philosophy here is to analyze each other’s work in hope of finding truth.
Anselm’s Apologetic, is a response, or rebuttal to Guanilo’s arguments? I analyzed points one, two, and three, in hopes of gaining a better understanding of how philosophers took criticism of there work.
Anselm responds to Guanilo’s argument about a being can only be conceived in the understanding, the understanding of a higher power exist in the understanding, which exists in reality. Anselm responds by saying if a higher power does not exist in understanding or concept, than that being does is not God or is not understood or conceived. To deny that a higher power exists is nonexistent. By conceiving that a higher power exists it is a step toward understanding.
In his second point Anselm is trying to provide a better statement, about what he said about the foolish. Anselm appears to say the fool understands, but understanding alone is not enough. The fool must conceive that understanding is admitting that a higher power exists in reality. To conceive a higher power exist on understanding alone is not enough, it must be conceived in reality as well.
The third point is actually Anselm pointing out flaws in Guanilo’s example of the lost island. Anselm’s rebuttal is that if a person conceives that a higher power does not exist he is not really conceiving at all. I f a person does not really conceive he does not conceive nonexistence. On the other hand Anselm feels if he conceives he must certainly conceive of a higher power. It is impossible for a person to conceive that a higher power does not exist.
In conclusion Anselm has argued effectively in my opinion in response to Guanilo’s argument. Anselm thanked Guanilo for his praise and criticism in his conclusion. The role of philosophy in this case is to find flaw’s in another’s arguments, but at the sametime not offend that person, and to find some new truths, or problematic solutions to discuss.
Nominalism, Realism, and conceptualism, were theories in answer to the question of universals. Universals were divided into direct, and reflect universals. Direct universals is the question of reality, have of the perceived being. Reflect universals pertained to the relation of individuals
Exaggerated Realism is a theory where universal concepts of the mind are entwined with concepts of nature. There are similarities between the higher power and nature. This theory does not coincide with common sense, or rational thought.
While realism relates qualities of the world, to qualities of thought, Nominalism deals with external objects. Nominalism denies that abstract, and universal truths exist. I dears are only names, and collective things, are just specific events. Differences between Realism and Nominalism arise when characteristics are assigned to nature and thought.
Conceptualism admits the existence that there are universal concepts and abstracts. But contends that we as individuals do not know if these concepts have any foundations outside our mind. We do not know if these concepts have any real value.
Moderate realism is the theory, which states that there are universal concepts, and realities are not universal.
It was thought that the problem of universals was what all the philosophers of the medieval age thought about. Classifying philosophers according to theories was not rational since it raises questions of ideology and knowledge.
In conclusion the role of philosophy in this case was to see the various theories that philosophers came up with. These theories make up the foundation of life, from which philosophers tried to analyze life both now and then. It is important to analyze life it is the only way one finds truth both today and in the middle ages.