Great Works of Western Philosophy - Assignment Example

Great Works of Western Philosophy 2 Introduction: Seeking evidences for the existence of a superpower called God has been the epicenter for so many debates and argumentations till date. Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by numerous seekers from various genres including scientists, philosophers, theologians and many others. The concept of God bears ontological argumentations too. This paper addresses the key viewpoints of two great philosophers on the aspect of the existence of God - a) the ontological argument for the existence of God proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, an Italian medieval philosopher, and b) its rejection and criticism by Thomas Aquinas, another Italian philosopher and theologian. The paper tries to reinstate the proposition that Aquinas’ criticism on the ontological argument of Anselm of the existence of God can be rather considered as an improvement of Anselm’s argument. Anselm’s ontological argument: Let us first discuss Anselm’s ontological argument on the existence of God in order to understand the crux of the matter. Anselm’s ontological argument is cited in the second chapter of his theological discourse Proslogion, and is considered to be one of the most written about philosophical arguments ever. The main points in Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence are the following: God is a being of which nothing greater can be conceived of. God may exist in our understanding. It is always greater for a being to exist both in reality and in the understanding rather than existing just in the understanding alone. Therefore, God exists in reality. As Anselm argues, there can be only two possibilities regarding the existence of God: either God exists in reality or there is no God at all. There can be no disputes on the fact that the idea of God is best perceived as a cognitive concept, which conceives the notion that God is the most perfect being possible and the greatest one ever conceived. Further, Anselm states that things that exist in reality are always greater than those that exist in the mind. At the same time, if we assume that God exists in reality, then we can also conceive of a God that exists in reality. The existence of God in reality is one thing and the understanding of this concept is another. Anselm clarifies this statement with a simple example, “When a painter…thinks out …what he is going to paint, he has it in his understanding, but he does not yet understand that it exists…once he has painted it, he both has it in his understanding and understands that it exists.” (Cahn 381) The same argument can be implied for the existence of God too. When we conceive in our mind that God exists, it is still a concept as we have not yet believed that God exists in reality. But once we believe in the existence of God in reality, we can both conceive of God as the greatest being possible, and believe that God indeed exists in reality. In other words, as the concept of God as the supreme being can not just exist in the mind alone, therefore, such a being must exist in both mind and reality. So it implies that God exists. Aquinas’ criticism: Anselm’s ontological argument of the existence of God received much criticism, and was rejected by a number of Catholic theologians and even non-Christians, particularly by Thomas Aquinas, a theologian and a priest of the Roman Catholic Church in the Dominican Order from Italy. Aquinas’ most acclaimed work Summa Theologiae or ‘Summary of Theology’ mentions his major points in support of the criticism on the existence of God. The discourse is divided into three major parts, with each part divided into many questions and each question into several articles. Aquinas’ criticism on Anselm’s ontological argument is cited in the second question, in which Aquinas addresses the issue of God’s existence expanding within three articles. However, Aquinas’ criticism can be considered as an improvement over Anselm’s argument. Because, Aquinas offers five arguments or ‘five ways’ in which, he discusses the concept of the existence of God. Aquinas’ criticism on Anselm’s ontological argument starts with the argument that the existence of God is not self-evident as it argumentation. Anselm’s argument proposes that God’s existence is self-evident. As soon as we understand the significance of the term ‘God’, we also understand that God exists. But a being that exists actually and mentally is always greater than that which exists only mentally (as argued by Anselm). Therefore, as soon as the name ‘God’ is understood, it exists mentally following that it exists in reality also. So it is then proved that the proposition God exists is self-evident. This is what, according to Aquinas, summarizes the ontological argument of Anselm. Aquinas provides the definition of self-evidence before criticizing Anselm’s argument: “A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject.” (Cahn 418) A simple example in favor of this argument is a proposition that man is animal. It is self-evident because the nature of animal is contained in the essence of man. The proposition can be considered as self-evident because the meanings of its predicate and subject are known to us all. However, if the meanings are not clear to us, then the claim of its self-evidence can not be proven. In terms of the existence of God, the proposition God exists can not be considered as self-evident because the essence of its subject or God is not known to us. The proposition can be self-evident only when it can be demonstrated by things that are more known to us. Aquinas vs. Anselm on the existence of God: Aquinas provides a number of proofs in support of his argument. He proposes that the existence of God is demonstrable through the nature of cause and effect. Since the effect is better known to us than the cause, therefore, the effect can lead us to the knowledge of the cause. Further, going by this argument, it is possible to demonstrate the existence of God through the effects that are known to us. If a being is capable of demonstration and is knowable, then it can be accepted as an article of faith. This is a considerable argument in favor of the existence of God, as argued by Aquinas. Above all, Aquinas provides five proofs regarding God’s existence: First proof: From the point of view of motion, everything on earth undergoes change in accordance with something existing in reality. But then, there has to be a first mover from where everything starts. This mover is itself moved by nothing - this is known as God. Second proof: If there is no cause, there won’t be any effect. Besides, if there is not a first cause, there won’t be a last. Therefore, we must presuppose an efficient first cause, which is known as God. Third proof: It is possible that things can exist or be destroyed, but nothing can exist eternally. Every necessary thing has either a cause for its existence or does not have any. If something is itself the cause for the necessary existence of other things, then this is called God. Fourth proof: Everything has a greater and less degree of goodness, truth, and nobility in it. The greatest thing is always the cause of all things of its own kind. That means there is a perfect being conceivable, and this is known as God. Fifth proof: Everything has its own purpose or reason to arrive at its result, and its operation includes a plan. That means there is something intelligent which operates all natural things with a plan - this is known as God. With regard to the explanation of the existence of God, there are characteristic differences between the two approaches adopted by Anselm and Aquinas. Most particularly, Anselm provides ontological argument on the existence of God whereas Aquinas offers cosmological argument for its explanation. In short, Anselm and Aquinas propose the following respective views regarding God’s existence: Anselm God exists in our understanding, and being a possible entity, exists in reality as well. Therefore, God can be conceived as the most perfect or the greatest being in existence, and He can exist in all possible circumstances. Aquinas God exists as the first mover and the source of all motion on earth. As a possible entity, God exists in all circumstances and is itself the most efficient cause of all necessary things. However, going through the brief exploration on the existence of God, the viewpoints of Anselm and Aquinas are not very different from each other. We can consider, for example, the notion of possibility as prevalent in both Anselm and Aquinas. Anselm argues that if God exists only in our understanding and not in reality, then it would be possible for God to be greater than He is. It is also possible that God’s existence in reality can be greater than His existence in our understanding. This further implies that God is a being in which a greater is possible. But there lies the contradiction, because God is a being in which none greater is possible. Therefore, God is the greatest being that exists both in our understanding and in reality. Anselm argues, “…that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist only in the understanding. For if it exists only in the understanding, it can be thought to exist in reality as well, which is greater…therefore, there is no doubt that something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the understanding and in reality.” (Cahn 381) Aquinas’ third proof incorporates the nature of possibility. He argues that it is possible for things to exist or non-exist, however, it is impossible for all things to exist eternally. Further, if things exist, then it is also possible that there is a beginning point of everything - this is what is known as God. Nature includes things that are possible to exist or non-exist, because they can be generated or destroyed. But things are not, in any possible means, to be found existing always. There has to be something already existing in order for things to begin to exist. Otherwise, nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Aquinas further points out that every existing thing is in existence because of something possible and necessary. The necessity of things is caused by something more efficient. In other words, the existence of all possible and necessary things is because of a supreme cause - a cause called God. After going through the discussion of the ontological and cosmological arguments of Anselm and Aquinas respectively, it is evident that Aquinas’ argument can be considered as an improvement of Anselm’s argument. We can take the example of Aquinas’ third proof, that is, the nature of possibility in this context. What Aquinas has developed regarding the possibility argument of Anselm is an expansion of Anselm’s argument on the same. Anselm has developed his argument on the possibility of God’s existence both in our understanding and in reality. What has been expanded by Aquinas on the issue is an addition of the necessity argument. The possibility of the existence of things also incorporates the cause of being necessary things to exist. In other words, things that are possible to exist are also the things found to be necessary for existence. But in order to be existing, all possible and necessary things require to be known as existing because of something more possible and necessary than all other things. And this entity is known to be the primary cause of all existing things, which we know as God. God is the most significant cause with its possibility and necessity that makes all other things exist on earth. As Aquinas argues in Summa Theologiae, “…nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality…therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.” (Cahn 419-420) Conclusion: The existence of God involves several philosophical proofs by various theologians, scientists and philosophers. Whatever the arguments are, no one can rationally deny the existence of a supreme being or an absolute entity called God. Out of the wide variety of arguments regarding God’s existence, Anselm’s ontological argument is considered to be one of the most researched thoughts. Aquinas’ argument is usually perceived as the strongest critique of Anselm. However, this paper points out that the correlations between the two philosophers and their thoughts are more prevalent than any differences between the two. While Anselm’s ontological argument points out that there can not be a greater conceivable entity than God Himself that exists both in our understanding as well as in reality, Aquinas’ cosmological argument takes it ahead to the definition of a supreme cause, a prime mover of all things in motion - again, God Himself. Because, if God is the greatest entity of all existing things in the mind and in reality, then it is very much evident that God is the primary cause of all things. He is the mover of everything that undergoes change over time. The existence of God can be demonstrated from His effects. God is His own essence. To conclude, in Aquinas’ quote from the Exodus chapter 3 verse 14, it is said in the person of God: “I am who I am” (Cahn 419) Reference: Cahn, Steven M. Classics of Western Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2002. Read More