Ontological Argument of Descartes - Report Example

Word Count=1191 Ontological Argument The ontological argument has its major foundations on the words of Desecrates that are clearly spelt out in the Fifth Meditation. The Ontological argument claims that given the fact that it is probable for an individual to derive from his thoughts of something, it follows that the individual has the ability to dictate the characteristics that that certain thing adopts. Following this line of thought, Descartes pointed out that he found in his mind the concept of God, of an almighty perfect being, it naturally follows that in the real sense he has his belonging to the nature of this God (Barnes 23). If looked at closely, one thing that comes out in the open is that the ontological argument given by Descartes differs from the original explanations of the ontological argument. The model for the majority of conventional deductions is the ontological argument presented by St. Anselm in the Proslogium II. Interpreted loosely, Descartes argument means that his notion of God is that of a superlatively perfect being. In itself, existence is excellence. In reality, God must exist or else the idea that one has about God would lack any form of perfection and as expected this would be illogical. The core of God is confined in the idea of existence just like the essence of a triangle revolves around its three sides (Platinga 11). Over the years, there have been various interpretations given on what Descartes really meant in his ontological argument. However, most of given interpretations only examines the simple meaning of existence but Descartes arguments looks at existence in relation to the perfection of God. In short, what Descartes is claiming is that there is no any other way that he can examine the context of God due to his nature as an omnipotent and perfect being. According to Descartes, any idea that an individual has on God must reflect this need. Naturally, this is a special case of perfection and for that reason, any idea of God that an individual has must have objective reality owing to the nature of what it symbolizes (Malcolm 41). According to some modern philosophers, it is apparent that what Descartes depicts by necessary existence is not what a few modern philosophers refer to as logical necessity. In its place, Descartes points to an ontological requirement or perpetual as well as the unconditioned existence. In to ensure that the ontological consideration re understood with certainty, he brings in discussions of epistemological and psychological essentials to match his epistemology. It is interesting to note that majority of the objections to Descartes arguments are directed at this epistemology instead of the arguments itself. The problem with this is that these two are not directly interlinked (Copleston 96). The variation between dependent and important features for Descartes is very significant. This is because in most cases he is referring to either dependent or necessary being instead of simply referring to plain existence as is usually assumed. For example, when Descartes states, “…..we can envisage nothing other than as existent,” he means that dependent or plausible existence is enveloped in the nature of everything that is straightforward, not real existence (Russell 103), and in simpler terms, anything that is thought of is in the real sense existent. This means that God is an important real-existent (Copleston 98). Objections to Descartes Arguments Just like any other philosophy, the ontological argument has received a fair share of objections over time. Perhaps one of the earliest objections to this argument was a close friend of St. Anselm, the monk Gaunilo Marmoutier. Ideally, Gaunilo did not find anything wrong with this argument; however, he argued that there must be something that is not right with it since if there is not, it is possible to utilize its reasoning to justify things that we have no basis to believe to be true. For instance, Gaunilo pointed out that it is probable to use the ontological argument as a basis to prove the existence of an ideal island. According to Gaunilo, the perfect island according to Gaunilo must exist for we cannot conceive of an island that is bigger than that which can be conceived, which is illogical (Alston 452). If the ontological argument is functional, then, as Gaunilo puts it, the argument for the existence of the ideal island is functional too. These two arguments are founded on the same precipice and if one falls, then the other follows. However, the argument presented by Gaunilo of a perfect island is in some sense weak since man has no any justification to believe that an ideal island is existent. For this reason, Gaunilo’s argument must therefore be disregarded (Hartshorne 20). In reality, the issue that makes Gaunilo’s claim of an ideal island appear unrealistic is the issue of citing it a perfect island. The thing that makes Gaunilo’s argument of a perfect island not plausible is in the definition of an ideal island. A perfect island is perhaps the one with numerous palm trees and exotic beaches. For this reason, an island only becomes perfect if it has more of these features. However, there is no finite maximum number of trees that an island is supposed to have. For any island that an individual tries to envision as perfect, there is a high possibility that there is another island that has an extra tree or even better beaches. For this reason, it becomes apparent that no island beyond that no better island that be imagined of. The notion of the ideal island is illogical for there can never be such a thing, and on its part, the notion of a perfect God is not illogical. All the traits that God possesses have all got upper limits that once attained cannot be exceeded. For this reason, there is a big variation between the concept of God as proposed by Descartes and that of an ideal island as proposed by Gaunilo (Copleston 100), The other objection that appears more influential to the ontological argument is the one by Immanuel Kant. Kant founded his objection on the thought that since the ontological arguments is based on the opinion that the existent God is greater than the one that is non-existent, it is based on confusion. As Kant puts it, existence is not predicate, an asset or a substance that can be said to possess or lack certain traits. When individuals point out that God is existent, they are not in the real sense saying that there is an existent God and that he contains the traits of existence (Purtill 297). Personally, I think that the objection presented by Kant nullifies the ontological argument on the existence of God. Ideally, there has never been any plausible objection to Kant’s opinion that existence is not a property of objects. For this reason, it is impossible to make a comparison of a God that is existent to another that does not exist in any form as Descartes wants us to believe. As Kant points out correctly, a God that does not exist and another that is existent are identical at least in the qualitative sense. Works Cited Alston, Michael. The Ontological Argument Revisited. Philosophical Review 69 (2), 2010: 452-474. Barnes, Jonathan. The Ontological Argument. London, Macmillan Press, 2001. 23-25. Print. Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. Garden City: Doubleday, 2010. 96-101. Print. Hartshorne, Charles. Anselms Discovery: A Re-Examination of the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. LaSalle: Open Court, 2005. 18-25. Print. Malcolm, Norman. Anselm’s Ontological Arguments. Philosophical Review 69 (2), 2010: 41-62. Platinga, Alvin. The Ontological Argument. New York: Double Day, 2009. 11-20. Purtill, Riley. Hartshorne’s Modal Proof. The Journal of Philosophy 71(3): 2011. 297-307. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010. 102-115. Read More