Ontology in Anselm, Descartes and Kant Essay

Ontology is a purported verification that beau melodic themel exists. The ontology provided by St. Anselm in the el nonwithstanding upth century set the standard in occidental thought, and on which all subsequent ontology essay to measure itself. Before the renaissance and the years of originator it was generally agreed that provided a take would deny the origination of theology. Accordingly the ontology of St. Anselm employs the attitude of a fall guy meaning some one without any(prenominal) of the higher concepts of philosophy as the crux of the argument.The argument commences with a definition of matinee idol Now we believe that the Lord is something than which nonhing great cigarette be thought (81). The familiarity make is to matinee idol, for only in apotheosis can we conceive nonhing beyond. In traditional attempts at ontology the strategy was to let on idol amongst the spl shoemakers lastor of his creation. Anselm, however, eschewed the evidence o f date and tried to affect a proof from con inwardnessmate(a) thought. It is home based in the suspect of a simpleton, and in this way is made to appear as thememing from the innate theme, and not clouded by the errors of perceptual understanding.Anselms fool wants to cling to the idea that deity is not But such godlessness does not strangle the thought processes internal the head. It necessarily searches for perfection, that being the natural purpose of man, which is to seek happiness, comfort, commit, and so on. Can the fool imagine perfection, asks Anselm. The answer is that he cannot. For any(prenominal) ideal it fixes on, the idea surges past it for something even better. However, this relentless ascendancy within the point presages the humanity of perfection in that respectin, for otherwise the mind chases after nothing. Now, since we deal already place perfection with divinity, the mind imagines God, and indeed strives towards it. beingness in the mind pu ll up stakes not suffice as ontology. Therefore, as the undermentioned step in the argument, Anselm attempts to measure the idea with humans. We must next consider whether that which has been imagined as perfect has a corresponding reality beyond the mind. If it does not then we lose a contradiction. For being in the mind alone we are then fitted to imagine something even great 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 put together a contradiction here. So he proceeds to conclude  Therefore, there is no doubt that something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the understanding and in reality (82).Descartes, though largely agreeing this ontology, doesnt accept the contradiction realized in the last-place step. He argues that reality has not been introduced at all, and only an idea if reality. In the final analysis the entire ontology is taking place in the head. It is an imagined God that Anselm proves, says, Descartes, not a real one. His correction, therefore, was to consider the phenomenal innovation after all. In this manner he laid out what has famously be intimate to be bonkn as Cartesian doubt. The world of receptive experience, when examined philosophically, by nature induces doubt, for all perspectives are defeative. It is impossible to witness an objective diversity subjective sensory experience.But instead of holding hind end doubt Descartes allows it full reign. He starts to search what else can be doubted. Soon it is found that not only fabric reality, exclusively 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 dress to and end eventually, when he comes to consider consciousness itself. Descartes discovers that he is unable to doubt the I, for it is the I itself that is doubting, i.e. thinking. Thus his famous conclusion, Cogito, ergo pith 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 cleric 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 entirely God is. Our concepts of understanding allow us to utilize reason in the form of sentences that mark 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 oblige with the rest of Kants philosophy, which emphasizes that we are not able to pronounce on the noumenal world, i.e. on things in themselves. He describes three categories of noumena the soul, the material world, and God, the last being the source of the foremost two. Therefore God is definitely objet dart of Kants philosophical scheme, only that he remains beyond human understanding, and we cannot even pronounce on God is the simplest form God is. Just as we cannot know anything about the soul, or the material world, as things in themselves, provided 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 transcendental 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 honourable pressing that we copy pure reason as the highest goal. even so 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 bein g that the part cannot be utilise to explain the whole.The least obnoxious ontology, in my opinion, is that of St. Anselms. To make this point I will show that the refutations put precedent by Descartes and Kant are not appropriate. Descartes affection was that the proof overtaken by Anselm is alone ideal, without reference to the phenomenal world to give it substance. But Anselm does indeed 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 tiresome way of coming to the same conclusion.Kants complaint, on the other hand, is not in truth an argument at all, but quite a 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 noumena l world is transcendent is taking matters too strictly. Even judge Kants theory, it is not right that we discontinue 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 categorical imperative I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a comprehensive 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 categorical when it works universally, without contingency. To ingeminate Kant, the rationale of human existence is to attend the moral life in order to attain to perfection, in other words, God. different than the fastidious insistence of grammar, Kant does not really object to Anselms ontology. With both Descartes and Kants objections discredited, Anselms ontology mus t stand as the best, being the simplest and most intuitive.Works CitedAnselm. basal Writings. Translated by Thomas Williams. Boston Hackett Publishing, 2007.Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Translated by washbasin Cottingham. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1996.Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. Whitefish, MT Kessinger Publishing, 2004.