Untitled

Carruthers argues that for abstraction to be possible two conditions must be met. Firstly there must be a common feature shared between the particular expieriences/ ‘impressions’ that you have of different things. Secondly you must be able to notice this common features. However there is no common feature that shades of red have in common . Therefore it is false that all instances  of a colour share a common feature. This means that we cannot acquire the concept of that colour by abstracting the common feature of our expierience.

Locke’s account of concept acquisition is that to get the concept of redness we must expierience redness. However Carruthers argues that this theory of concept acquisition seems circular. This is because, according to Locke’s account, we must have a concept of red to have the common concept of red but we must expierience red to have a concept. Therefore having the concept red requires seeing what they have in common. This feel circular as we can’t get the concept from expierience. As a result we must have an innate concept similarities between things which we do not get from expierince which would mean that concept empiricism was incorrect.

We cannot from expierience alone use ideas from other ideas to get the idea that can be broken down into other ideas RED based on the common features of many ideas that cannot be broke down into other ideas.- simplified version

This means as red is a complex idea that we cannot simply get from our five senses we cannot abstract the idea of red to make it into a complex idea. This is because the idea of red is to complex to simply abstract from one object and apply to another

How is it going in general?

Its going well, Theres a lot to remember but I am keeping up so it’s ok.

Is the couse what you expected?

yes- I had researched the course before I started.

What have you enjoyed the most in terms of topics?

The ontological argument- I think it is a very clever way of proving Gods existence, I find it interesting.

What have you enjoyed the most in terms of lessons?

Group work, I prefer working in a group as it helps me remember lessons better.

Is there anything you have been disappointed about?

no

Did you feel you knew how to write the essays? where the technique sheets useful?

sometimes I get confused about what I am actually meant to be writing about- Sometimes several topics can apply to a debate and it is confusing to know which ones are relavant. The Technique sheets are useful as they help me structure my essays.

Do you need extra help with any aspects?

exam technique would be useful coming up to the exam, appart from that I think everything is going well.

firstly Anselm and Descarte have different definitions of God. Anselm defines  God as the greatest conceivable being while Descarte defines God as being a supremally perfect being.

Descarte continues to argue that because existence is perfection God must exist. As a result being a perfect being while not existing would be contradictory. Therefore as God is supremally perfect he must exist.

Anselms arguement is slightly different. As he suggests that it is greater to exist in reality and understanding than in understanding alone. Therefore as the definition of God is the greatest conceivable being he must exist.

Overall, Anselms and descartes defenitions of God are different. Therefore their arguements differ as Anslem believes God must exist to be the greatest Conceivable being while descartes believes God must exist to be supremally perfect.

Gaunilo argues that Anselms ontological arguement is a reductio ad absurdium, which means it has been reduced to the point of absurdity.If Anselms arguement is correct then we could use the same logical form for other arguements for multiple perfect items for example pencils, lizards and island. For example we could claim that there is a greatest conceivable cat. To be a greatest conceivable can it must exist both in reality and understanding as this is better than existing just in understanding. Therefore we could prove that a perfect cat must exist.we could use the same arguement for multiple things.

An ontological arguement is an arguement with the conclusion that God exists, which derive from a premise other that observation of the world. Therefore ontological arguements are a priori and conclude that God exists.

 An example of an Ontological arguement is Anselms ontological arguement. In this Anselm sugegest even a fool (an atheist) can understand the definition of God. This is that God is the greatest conceivavble being. Anselm also suggests that it is greater to exists in understanding and in reality rather than just in understanding.For example an artist thinks in advanced before he paints and has it in his understanding, but does not yet understand it to exist as he has not painted it yet. But when he has painted it he has it both in understanding and in reality. Therefore for God to be the greatest conceivavle being he must exist both in reality and in understanding as this is greater than existing in understanding alone. Therefore even a fool (an atheist) must understand that a GCB cannot be thought to  exist soley in understanding.

To conclude God must exist in reality and understanding to be a GCB. Even an atheist would understand that God must exist in reality to be the greastest conceivable being.