Ontological Argument: Two-Dimensional Version
The article deals with the Malcolm’s version of the ontological argument and its variation proposed by Hartshorne. It also highlights some "eternal" problems which are to be faced by everyone who wish to consider the ontological argument as a purely logical proof.
This article presents two French interpretations of Anselm’s Ontological Argument. The first one was proposed by Alexandre Koyré (1892-1964) in his early book The Idea of God in the Philosophy of St. Anselm (1922). Koyré considers Anselm’s philosophy being the part of Neo-Platonist tradition along with Augustin, Pseudo-Dionisius and Eriugena. But he also found in Anselm’s argumentation a quasi-phenomenological recognition of the intentionality of the consciousness that guarantees the openness of thought to the transcendent reality. This idea was further developed by Belgian jesuit Paul Gilbert in his book dedicated to Proslogion of St. Anselm. He reads Anselm’s Argument in the vein of French reflexive philosophy and points out that the negation of the id quo maius cogitari nequit existence is at the same time the negation of the act of thought itself.
The book is devoted to consideration in a popular form of evolution of one of the most debatable creations of the Western European metaphysics – the ontological evidence for God's existence or ontological argument. The idea of classical and non-classical arguments has allowed the author to analyses argument development as process of formation of the reflexive methodology, which is adequate for knowledge of the systems including free activity of the person. These are the problems constantly facing modern social sciences; therefore, despite the historical and philosophical direction of the book, the problems that are relevant to modern social and human sciences are under continued discussion. The book is primarily addressed to specialists in the field history of philosophy and methodology of social knowledge, philosophy and sociology of religion, and also to all who are interested in fundamental questions of classical metaphysics.
The book is devoted to consideration in a popular form of evolution of one of the most debatable creations of the Western European metaphysics - the ontological argument better known as the ontological argument of evidence for God's existence. The ontological argument is a logical nonsense for classical the subject - object relation; it becomes the natural phenomenon in the reflexive systems including cognitive activity of the subject as an element of the functioning and existence. The concept of classical and non-classical arguments has allowed the author to analyze argument development as process of formation of the reflexive methodology in the course of the Western philosophy development. From the standpoint of the received results, the methodological problems of economic science related to the alienation and also the reflexive paradoxes encountered within sociology of knowledge are analyzed in the last part of the book. The book is primarily addressed to specialists in the field history of philosophy and methodology of social knowledge, philosophy and sociology of religion, and also to all who are interested in fundamental questions of classical metaphysics.
The success of the so-called "ontological argument" prevents two important facts: 1) using the concept of existence as a real predicate, and 2) mixing of modalities de re and de dicto. This article deals with a way to overcome the first problem proposed by Czech logician Pavel Tichy.
The article deals with one of the most graceful and non-standard version of the modal ontological argument for existence of God proposed by analytic philosopher Stephen Makin in 1988. In his version he has succeeded to avoid the famous criticism of Kant the impossibility of using of the predicate ‘to exist’ as a “real”. Makin does not attempt to prove the necessary existing object; otherwise, he uses a concept of necessarily exemplified concept. He argues there is at least one (possibly unique) such concept - scilicet Anselm’s famous "that than which non greater can be conceived".
This study consists of three main parts: firstly, it is discussed Makin’s idea and version of the argument; secondly, it is analyzed the criticism which has been received from 1988 to 1991; thirdly, I present my own objections to Makin’s version, and to the criticism on it.
I will say something presently about three important points, namely: 1) there are no reasonable arguments in favor of the idea that class of necessarily exemplified concept is not empty; 2) there seems to be no plausibility to holding that the interchangeability of alethic modalities is sound here; 3) there are some additional difficulties that have been not previously mentioned in the analysis of evidence. In particular, the proof does not take into account the multilevel structure of the ontology, which hierarchy of levels, as a rule, determines what kind of entity exists in the ontology in the true sense of the word. In addition, Makin’s approach is well described in terms of Tichy’s "offices", which makes it impossible to worship God as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The Eastern or Crimean War (1853–1856) phenomenon is the reflection of fundamental conflicts of the era: the clash of empires’ interests and emerging centers of capital – financial elites. The Crimean War can be referred as a protoworld war even by just considering the number of participants. The participants were not united by a common interest, but rather by a common rival. With the commencement of military actions, a common rival became a common enemy. Wars of such a scale usually occur in transitional phases of history, for example, a period of transition from political stability to political fragmentation, or vice versa. The Crimean War was related to the phase of the first type: it destroyed international political stability – the Vienna system, and opened the gate for political instability. The war had a chronocultural sense and this is one of the Crimean War’s secrets.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.