fortsättning med ny look på blogspot:
http://enklabloggen.blogspot.com
"furthermore:
if it can be conceived at all, it must exist. For no one who denies or doubts the existence of a being than which a greater is inconceivable, denies or doubts that if it did exist, its non-existence, either in reality or in the understanding, would be impossible. For otherwise it would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. But as to whatever can be conceived, but does not exist — if there were such a being, its non-existence, either in reality or in the understanding, would be possible. Therefore if a being than which a greater is inconceivable can be even conceived, it cannot be nonexistent."
(Försöker förstå Anselm av Canterburys diskussion med Gaunilo, angående Guds existens, återkommer)
Alltså: Om begreppet “det högsta tänkbara väsendet” blott är begripligt, följer att Gud existerar, enligt Anselm, ty i sådana fall har vi ett begrepp om något som med nödvändighet existerar i verkligheten.
Comment by Doktorn — April 24, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
…men hur blir “tänkbart” plötsligt “nödvändigt”?
Comment by system administrator — April 24, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Att tänka på det högsta tänkbara väsendet är att tänka på något som existerar med nödvändighet, tycks Anselm mena. (Att tänka på Pegasus är däremot inte att tänka på något som existerar med nödvändighet.)
Comment by Doktorn — April 24, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
:)
Comment by system administrator — April 24, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
What does this mean in English? As far as I know there is nothing wrong with my IQ, but I have never really understood that argument…
Comment by Anders Rasmussen — April 25, 2007 @ 11:06 am
:)
He basically says that:
“it’s better to exist BOTH in reality and in fantasy, than only in fantasy”.
And since this being is the best and greatest, it has got the greatest kind of existence.
Comment by system administrator (z) — April 25, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Anselm is saying (I think), that factual existence is the most perfect property of an object. And if you agree that an infinitely perfect being is conceivable, you must also admit that such a being exists. Otherwise that which you are imagining is not perfect, because if it were, it would by necessity exist (based on his premise, that existence is the most perfect property).
Comment by Anders Lundblad — April 25, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
Tack, Doktorn & Anders för era sjysta förklaringar.
Är existens en egenskap?
Comment by system administrator — April 27, 2007 @ 8:57 am