In the reading Monologian, Anselm of Canterbury attempts to prove the existence of God, or "the source of the things that are good" (259), through logical argument. During this argument, Anselm asserts the point that all good things, when compared to each other, are done so in the way that they are either equally good or that they are not equally good. Therefore, Anselm reasons that these things must be compared relative to a constant good that is present in all of the other particular goods. He then goes on to explain how the constant good that is present in the different particulars can be different depending on the perspective from which the apparent good is viewed. Here he uses the example that a horse can be good based on its strength whereas it can also be good based on its speed. This point is expanded to clarify that strength and speed are beneficial in the case of the horse because it is overall beneficial, whereas strength in speed are considered bad in the thief because they are not overall beneficial. Anselm then continues his argument stating that what all these good things are good for is one thing that is good through itself. This thing that is good through itself is then the supreme good. This supreme good must then exist, Anselm concludes, in order for other good to exist through it. In Anselm's argument, I found myself thinking that if it were the case that one good must be the supreme in order for other goods to be apparent, then how is that this ultimate good can be known completely through our mortal and imperfect logic? Wouldn't our logic have to be perfect in order to absolutely know that a supreme being as this truly exists? I was wondering if anyone else could offer another perspective on this as by the end of Anselm's argument I could not seem to find myself absolutely convinced as a being such as the one he describes relying solely on my own imperfect, and often misled, logic alone.
1. In the second chapter in Book V, Augustine writes that God indeed has a substance or essence, however this differs from all other forms of substance or essence. He argues that "God is the only unchangeable substance or essence". An example of how humans differ is that we contain 'accidents'. Accidents can be understood as an immutable trait, like hair color or height. Accidents in humans suggest that we are susceptible to change. The color of a humans hair can be changed and differs. God does not share accidents with humans, thus nothing can be changed about God. 2. Is Anselm of Canterbury reaching for a universal goodness? It appears to me that Anselm is trying to reason through the possibility of a single concept in which all good things are good through. However, I think it is a clear that different things are good for different reasons. Also, similar things can be good in one context but bad in another. For example, it is surely morally good to rescue a hostage from a kidnapper is the hostage is a child and the kidnapper a criminal. However, it is surely immoral to rescue a hostage from a kidnapper if the hostage is a criminal and the kidnapper the police department. Let me know if you think I'm the one doing the reaching here, but something seems wrong to be about a singular universal through which good things are good.
I found some of the ideas mentioned in God's nature to be quite interesting. A concept that really got me thinking was the one involving hair changing in color. A portion of the reading is about how God does not make accidents. To reveal this belief the author talks about how hair changes. Someone's hair can start of as black but end up turning white as a person ages. The hair is still hair, it has turned white only only because the person has aged. The author used this example to show that despite a change occurring the hair is still hair proving God does make accidents. He may make something different but it is not accidental.
Another part of the reading that caught my attention was the part in which the author talks about how objects are what they are based upon relation not substance. The example the author used involved father and son. A father is a father in that they have a child in this case a son. The son is a son in that they have a parent in this case a father. If the son did not have a father they would cease to be a son. If the father had no son they would cease to be a father. Father and son are an example of the many objects that are characterized by their relation to one another not their substance.
Chris, it was interesting that you highlighted how one of the authors talked about objects being defined upon their relation to one another. I found that this concept was expressed by Anselm of Canterbury as well when he is talking about the concept of God being the ultimate good. Anselm writes "Given that there is such an uncountable number of good things, the sheer multiplicity of which is simply a datum of bodily sense as well as something we perceive by means of the rational mind - given this, are we to believe that there is some one thing through which all good things whatsoever are good?" (259). Perhaps then objects are not only defined based on their relationship to other objects but perhaps too defined based on their relation to a constant concept like that of goodness and all things that can be defined as good.
One of the more interesting arguments that was given was in how ones existence is only relevant to that of another. Using the comparison of a father only being a father because he has a son, and a son only being a son because he has a father was logical in a sense that it provided the reader with a base for something existing in relation to something else. it also provides a way for objects and people to be held consistent or constant through other existing things in life. perhaps it was to highlight that if something has no relations to anything else, it does not really exist? I also appreciate the way the author broke down existence as a whole and separated the parts of it to analyze and them more effectively. He began with recognizing that something exist, then how it is exist where the details of its form and substance are all discussed. This creates a more solid argument for the author proving Gods existence or for anyone proving anythings existence.
I was wondering if the piece by Anselm was setting up his ontological argument or if it was entirely unrelated to the ontological argument? From the suma theologica reading what exactly did Aquinas mean by prime matter does he mean some kind of material substrate or does he mean something else entirely?
The distinction Augustine makes between accidental and relative ways of categorizing or identifying is interesting to me. Augustine says “God” and “Lord” are relative titles. Whereas God is eternal and unchanging, the title of “Lord” refers not to a change in God, but to a change elsewhere in the universe, namely that of being the Lord of all things that be. Something He could only be after they came into being. Just as a man becomes a father when he has a son. The son comes to be and changes the relative title of the man to father, without any distinct change to the man. God is always God, but God is (relatively) called Lord over his dominion.
I appreciate the different methods used by these authors to justify God. While Augustine chooses to pursue the eternal nature of God, Anselm examines God’s Goodness in what seems to be a sort of Aristotelian virtue ethics, where God is the ultimate Good. The highly organized and logical examination presented in Aquinas’s text is a refreshing respite from the other authors, and is much more like the analytic philosophy that has grown in the centuries since.
In Book V, Augustine argues that God is the only thing whose essence is unchangeable and does not change. I suppose that this entails that everything that does not change composes God. This makes me wonder how pervasive Augustine thinks that God really is. Anselm argues in the Monologian that there exists one thing that is best and that is good "through itself." I understand what he is saying, but it seems that he doesn't really get at what it is that makes something good. To say that a strong and swift horse is good because it is beneficial seems almost tautologous to me. I was also wondering what he would say makes something bad.
In the reading Monologian, Anselm of Canterbury attempts to prove the existence of God, or "the source of the things that are good" (259), through logical argument. During this argument, Anselm asserts the point that all good things, when compared to each other, are done so in the way that they are either equally good or that they are not equally good. Therefore, Anselm reasons that these things must be compared relative to a constant good that is present in all of the other particular goods. He then goes on to explain how the constant good that is present in the different particulars can be different depending on the perspective from which the apparent good is viewed. Here he uses the example that a horse can be good based on its strength whereas it can also be good based on its speed. This point is expanded to clarify that strength and speed are beneficial in the case of the horse because it is overall beneficial, whereas strength in speed are considered bad in the thief because they are not overall beneficial. Anselm then continues his argument stating that what all these good things are good for is one thing that is good through itself. This thing that is good through itself is then the supreme good. This supreme good must then exist, Anselm concludes, in order for other good to exist through it. In Anselm's argument, I found myself thinking that if it were the case that one good must be the supreme in order for other goods to be apparent, then how is that this ultimate good can be known completely through our mortal and imperfect logic? Wouldn't our logic have to be perfect in order to absolutely know that a supreme being as this truly exists? I was wondering if anyone else could offer another perspective on this as by the end of Anselm's argument I could not seem to find myself absolutely convinced as a being such as the one he describes relying solely on my own imperfect, and often misled, logic alone.
ReplyDelete1. In the second chapter in Book V, Augustine writes that God indeed has a substance or essence, however this differs from all other forms of substance or essence. He argues that "God is the only unchangeable substance or essence". An example of how humans differ is that we contain 'accidents'. Accidents can be understood as an immutable trait, like hair color or height. Accidents in humans suggest that we are susceptible to change. The color of a humans hair can be changed and differs. God does not share accidents with humans, thus nothing can be changed about God.
ReplyDelete2. Is Anselm of Canterbury reaching for a universal goodness? It appears to me that Anselm is trying to reason through the possibility of a single concept in which all good things are good through. However, I think it is a clear that different things are good for different reasons. Also, similar things can be good in one context but bad in another. For example, it is surely morally good to rescue a hostage from a kidnapper is the hostage is a child and the kidnapper a criminal. However, it is surely immoral to rescue a hostage from a kidnapper if the hostage is a criminal and the kidnapper the police department. Let me know if you think I'm the one doing the reaching here, but something seems wrong to be about a singular universal through which good things are good.
I found some of the ideas mentioned in God's nature to be quite interesting. A concept that really got me thinking was the one involving hair changing in color. A portion of the reading is about how God does not make accidents. To reveal this belief the author talks about how hair changes. Someone's hair can start of as black but end up turning white as a person ages. The hair is still hair, it has turned white only only because the person has aged. The author used this example to show that despite a change occurring the hair is still hair proving God does make accidents. He may make something different but it is not accidental.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of the reading that caught my attention was the part in which the author talks about how objects are what they are based upon relation not substance. The example the author used involved father and son. A father is a father in that they have a child in this case a son. The son is a son in that they have a parent in this case a father. If the son did not have a father they would cease to be a son. If the father had no son they would cease to be a father. Father and son are an example of the many objects that are characterized by their relation to one another not their substance.
Chris, it was interesting that you highlighted how one of the authors talked about objects being defined upon their relation to one another. I found that this concept was expressed by Anselm of Canterbury as well when he is talking about the concept of God being the ultimate good. Anselm writes "Given that there is such an uncountable number of good things, the sheer multiplicity of which is simply a datum of bodily sense as well as something we perceive by means of the rational mind - given this, are we to believe that there is some one thing through which all good things whatsoever are good?" (259). Perhaps then objects are not only defined based on their relationship to other objects but perhaps too defined based on their relation to a constant concept like that of goodness and all things that can be defined as good.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more interesting arguments that was given was in how ones existence is only relevant to that of another. Using the comparison of a father only being a father because he has a son, and a son only being a son because he has a father was logical in a sense that it provided the reader with a base for something existing in relation to something else. it also provides a way for objects and people to be held consistent or constant through other existing things in life. perhaps it was to highlight that if something has no relations to anything else, it does not really exist?
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate the way the author broke down existence as a whole and separated the parts of it to analyze and them more effectively. He began with recognizing that something exist, then how it is exist where the details of its form and substance are all discussed. This creates a more solid argument for the author proving Gods existence or for anyone proving anythings existence.
I was wondering if the piece by Anselm was setting up his ontological argument or if it was entirely unrelated to the ontological argument?
ReplyDeleteFrom the suma theologica reading what exactly did Aquinas mean by prime matter does he mean some kind of material substrate or does he mean something else entirely?
The distinction Augustine makes between accidental and relative ways of categorizing or identifying is interesting to me. Augustine says “God” and “Lord” are relative titles. Whereas God is eternal and unchanging, the title of “Lord” refers not to a change in God, but to a change elsewhere in the universe, namely that of being the Lord of all things that be. Something He could only be after they came into being. Just as a man becomes a father when he has a son. The son comes to be and changes the relative title of the man to father, without any distinct change to the man. God is always God, but God is (relatively) called Lord over his dominion.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the different methods used by these authors to justify God. While Augustine chooses to pursue the eternal nature of God, Anselm examines God’s Goodness in what seems to be a sort of Aristotelian virtue ethics, where God is the ultimate Good. The highly organized and logical examination presented in Aquinas’s text is a refreshing respite from the other authors, and is much more like the analytic philosophy that has grown in the centuries since.
In Book V, Augustine argues that God is the only thing whose essence is unchangeable and does not change. I suppose that this entails that everything that does not change composes God. This makes me wonder how pervasive Augustine thinks that God really is.
ReplyDeleteAnselm argues in the Monologian that there exists one thing that is best and that is good "through itself." I understand what he is saying, but it seems that he doesn't really get at what it is that makes something good. To say that a strong and swift horse is good because it is beneficial seems almost tautologous to me. I was also wondering what he would say makes something bad.