More than One Flaw: Reply to Millican
Millican (Mind 113(451):437–476, 2004) claims to have detected ‘the one fatal flaw in Anselm’s ontological argument.’ I argue that there is more than one important flaw in the position defended in Millican (Mind 113(451):437–476, 2004). First, Millican’s reconstruction of Anselm’s argument does seri...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Springer Netherlands
2007
|
In: |
Sophia
Year: 2007, Volume: 46, Issue: 3, Pages: 295-304 |
Further subjects: | B
Non-existent objects
B Ontological Argument B Proslogion B Anselm |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | Millican (Mind 113(451):437–476, 2004) claims to have detected ‘the one fatal flaw in Anselm’s ontological argument.’ I argue that there is more than one important flaw in the position defended in Millican (Mind 113(451):437–476, 2004). First, Millican’s reconstruction of Anselm’s argument does serious violence to the original text. Second, Millican’s generalised objection fails to diagnose any flaw in a vast range of ontological arguments. Third, there are independent reasons for thinking that Millican’s generalised objection is unpersuasive. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1873-930X |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Sophia
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11841-007-0037-0 |