The following is the content of the email which I sent to the instructor.
[Instructor]:
As I understand it, Anselm's ontological argument can be explained, or rather reduced, to the following, as discussed in class today:
p is some "thing"
q is all other things or any other thing which is not p
p is greater than q
even if p is only in thought, then it is in fact not p, because p is greater than q, which inherently includes not p.
(the thought of p cannot be p, because p, the actual thing, would still be greater than the thought of p, therefore requiring that the thought of p actually be made q.)
the thought of p is not p, and therefore is q.
p is greater than q.
Now, if Anselm's argument were presented as such, provided that I've reduced it accurately (though I do not claim to have done so to perfection), I believe that it would be a much more believable argument.
But as soon as the variable 'p' is replaced with the word 'God', it seems as though it's not as easy to swallow.
Today in class I observed a lot of reaction to Anselm's argument, which, at this point, in the context of this class, is the ONLY philosophy read or studied on behalf of the students in the class. Therefore as of yet, no other argument has been presented. And because the sole philosophical argument is about God and Its existence, and everyone has an opinion on this, it was difficult to leave subjectivity at the door.
Anselm's argument, or at least the portion of his argument that we were discussing, only relates to the existence of God, that thing which is greater than all other things.
Yet, I heard the following words: pain, pleasure, good, evil, great.
These, and our perceptions of such, are irrelevant to the discussion. God exists or God does not exist. Before getting into those things mentioned above, the God exists/not exists needs to be understood first, perchance even answered. (But by being answered, I mean merely assumed: for sake of discussion.)
Now, for sake of discussion, I would like to briefly comment on something that further bothered me in the discussion today (other than what I've already typed): the use, or rather misuse, of the word "great".
Near the end of the class time, either started by yourself, or a comment from a student, the word "great" was substituted into Anselm's 'something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought', and the conversation swung from the quantitative "greater-than" to the qualitative "great". Is this not one of the rules of bad philosophy? Keeping the same or similar word, but changing the meaning? "Greater-than" and "great" are two completely different things, especially when discussing the something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought.
For Anselm's argument, as I understand it, and as it is related to our discussion today, was not supposed to be about the nature or character of God, but merely that God exists, if It exists at all.
Furthermore, the two word pairs that also came up, as noted above, being pain-pleasure and good-evil can hardly be discussed without first being defined. But in this lies a huge problem. If only contemplating good-evil, and only thinking of it in terms of God, then whose definition are we to use? But first, is this thing, this God, mono or plural? Nevertheless, let's assume, for the sake of this email, that we're discussing the good-evil of a mono-God.
Now, to use a likely poor example, which could easily be torn apart, I would like to pose a situation of good-evil in the following specific context: the adulterous woman.
First, consider Christianity (not how the church interprets, but what the Gospels state), in the case of the woman who was caught in the act of adultery (what did that look like anyway?). According to John 8:1-11, a woman was caught in the act of adultery and brought before Jesus. The Law demanded that she be put to death. Jesus' response was first to write something on the ground, then to ask of the people who wanted this woman to die, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (v.7). No one did throw a stone, they all left, the woman just stood there, then Jesus forgave her and told her to be on her way; effectively absolving the woman from her act of adultery.
Secondly, consider Islam (not how clerics interpret, but rather what the Qu'ran states). Sura 4:34 suggests that when a husband suspects disobedience (which includes adultery) from his wife, that he is to admonish her, isolate her from the community, and then beat her until she becomes obedient. Not that the wife must actually be disobedient, but merely that the husband has suspicion of disobedience.
In this limited study, Jesus says to absolve the woman who is adulterous, and this is what is 'good'. Muhammad says to rebuke, isolate, and physically beat until obedient, the woman whom the man merely thinks is disobedient (or adulterous), and this is what is 'good'.
Now, provide these two visions of God's goodness to the class, and I can likely assume that 100% of them will think that one is good and one is not good, or rather, evil, based solely upon each person's own sense of what is good. But here, two major world religions, both of which claim the same God and claim supremacy over the other, have contradicting views on the good treatment of women.
So then, I ask, when the word "good" was used today in class in reference to God, whose definition is being used? There are really only a few choices available, those specifically being the definitions provided by Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. For those are the three major religions which are monotheist and all point to the same God as the source of their revelation and understanding of God. It would be illogical, nay impossible, to discuss God as existing or not-existing while using some concept of good-evil to argue this existence without first defining that good-evil, and to do so can only be done through one of or all of these three, none of which in fact offer any sort of system of good-evil wherein God does not exist. Attempting to argue that God does not exist by using qualities of Its existence as the premises? This does not seem to me to be good philosophy.
"...is he--quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion."
"That you will, dearie, and no mistake," said Mrs. Beaver; "if there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than most or else just silly."
"Then he isn't safe?" said Lucy.
"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver; "don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."
(Lewis, C.S. The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Harper Collins: New York NY, 1950, 86.)
(NB: To understand this quote in relation to the above discussion, safe is good, and good is just; although "just" did not come up in the conversation.)
No comments:
Post a Comment