Ontology in Anselm, Descartes and Kant Essay

Ontology is a purported proof that idol exists. The ontology provided by St. Anselm in the el even outth century set the standard in westbound thought, and on which on the whole subsequent ontology attempted to measure itself. Before the conversion and the age of reason it was generally agreed that more(prenominal)over a arse about would deny the globe of paragon. Accordingly the ontology of St. Anselm employs the attitude of a stigma kernel some one without any of the higher concepts of philosophy as the crux of the stock.The argument commences with a definition of God Now we believe that the Lord is something than which naught greater jackpot be thought (81). The association made is to perfection, for only in perfection can we conceive nonhing beyond. In conventional attempts at ontology the strategy was to find God amongst the spl fireor of his creation. Anselm, however, eschewed the evidence of visualize and tried to affect a proof from pure thought. It is pla ced in the head of a simpleton, and in this way is made to appear as stemming from the innate point, and not clouded by the errors of perceptual savvy.Anselms fool wants to cling to the idea that God is not But such atheism does not strangle the thought processes inside the head. It necessarily searches for perfection, that being the instinctive inclination of man, which is to seek happiness, comfort, order, and so on. Can the fool imagine perfection, asks Anselm. The coiffure is that he cannot. For whatever ideal it fixes on, the mind surges past it for something even better. However, this unforgiving ascendancy within the mind presages the existence of perfection therein, for otherwise the mind chases after nothing. Now, since we have already identified perfection with God, the mind imagines God, and and so strives towards it.Existence in the mind will not suffice as ontology. Therefore, as the next step in the argument, Anselm attempts to measure the idea with man bein gs. We essentialiness next deem whether that which has been imagined as perfect has a corresponding reality beyond the mind. If it does not then we have a contradiction in terms. For being in the mind alone we are then able to imagine something even greater than it. That which was imagined as perfect now turns out have something that is more perfect than it. Anselm is sure that he has found a contradiction here. So he proceeds to conclude Therefore, there is no doubt that something than which a greater cannot be thought exists two in the understanding and in reality (82).Descartes, though largely accepting this ontology, doesnt accept the contradiction derived in the final step. He argues that reality has not been introduced at all, exactly only an idea if reality. In the final analysis the entire ontology is fetching place in the head. It is an imagined God that Anselm proves, says, Descartes, not a real one. His correction, thusly, was to consider the phenomenal world after all. In this manner he hardened out what has famously come to be known as Cartesian doubt. The world of sensory experience, when examined philosophically, naturally induces doubt, for all perspectives are vanquishive. It is unfeasible to construe an objective form subjective sensory experience.But kinda of holding back doubt Descartes allows it full reign. He starts to explore what else can be doubted. Soon it is found that not only material reality, still also all the perceptions and ideas of the mind must also be doubted, for they all stem from the same faculty of understanding. But his doubting reach must come to and end eventually, when he comes to consider consciousness itself. Descartes discovers that he is ineffectual to doubt the I, for it is the I itself that is doubting, i.e. thinking. Thus his famous conclusion, Cogito, ergo add up I think, therefore I am (68). From the proof of self-existence to the proof of God is a simple step. A self that is subject to doubt is imperfect, and therefore implies the existence of Creator who is perfect.Kant, in turn, comes to dismiss both these attempts at ontology on the simple premise that existence is not a predicate. In other words, it is meaningless to say simply God is. Our concepts of understanding allow us to apply reason in the form of sentences that contain both subject and predicate. So that we can say that God is good, or that God is merciful. But simply God is is not meaningful, and human understanding does not allow such speculation. In effect, Kant is saying that ontology is not possible.This is in concord with the rest of Kants philosophy, which emphasizes that we are not able to vocalise on the noumenal world, i.e. on things in themselves. He describes three cat self-importanceries of noumena the soul, the material world, and God, the oddment being the source of the first two. Therefore God is definitely bankrupt of Kants philosophical scheme, only that he remains beyond human understand ing, and we cannot even pronounce on God is the simplest form God is. simply as we cannot know anything about the soul, or the material world, as things in themselves, scarce only come to know the consequences of them.Our understanding is limited to the phenomenal world, where practical reason applies. Kant also speculates on the existence of a inscrutable pure reason, that which overcomes the anomalies of practical reason. Pure reason is identified as an end in itself, and is thus identified with perfection. He stipulates it as a clean imperative that we pursue pure reason as the highest goal. further he refuses to identify this perfection with God, and differs with Anselm on this point. He also differs with Descartes cogito, ego sum, and complains that logic is being applied to derive existence, the rationale being that the part cannot be used to explain the whole.The least objectionable ontology, in my opinion, is that of St. Anselms. To make this point I will show that the refutations put send on by Descartes and Kant are not appropriate. Descartes complaint was that the proof given by Anselm is wholly ideal, without reference to the phenomenal world to give it substance. But Anselm does therefore refer to the phenomenal world, when he introduces the postulate that the ideal of perfection has no corresponding existence in the real world. In fact on this postulate the entire argument hinges, for it is used to derive the contradiction, from whence the ontology ensues. Cartesian doubt a merely a long-winded way of advance to the same conclusion.Kants complaint, on the other hand, is not really an argument at all, but rather a boast that he has not has to use the words God exists anywhere in his philosophy. For to pick on the grammar of God exists on the justification that the noumenal world is unknowable is taking matters in like manner strictly. Even accepting Kants theory, it is not right that we desist from pronouncing the existence of God. He may not have done so explicitly, but Kant does indeed pronounce of the existence of God in the implicit sense. As a moral precept to action he gives us the two-dimensional imperative I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a prevalent law (13).The universal law is pertaining to the moral law, which is described as an end itself, and therefore is no different from the idea of perfection. An imperative is only flavorless when it works universally, without contingency. To paraphrase Kant, the rationale of human existence is to pursue the moral life in order to attain to perfection, in other words, God. former(a) than the fastidious insistence of grammar, Kant does not really object to Anselms ontology. With both Descartes and Kants objections discredited, Anselms ontology must stand as the best, being the simplest and some intuitive.Works CitedAnselm. Basic Writings. Translated by Thomas Williams. Boston Hackett Publishing, 2007.Descartes , Rene. Meditations on initiative Philosophy With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Translated by John Cottingham. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1996.Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. Whitefish, MT Kessinger Publishing, 2004.