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: | Drawer...
|
| 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: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000naa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1785589806 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20220112043351.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220112s2007 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11841-007-0037-0 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1785589806 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1785589806 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Oppy, Graham |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a More than One Flaw: Reply to Millican |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2007 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a 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. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Non-existent objects | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Proslogion | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Anselm | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ontological Argument | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Sophia |d Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands, 1962 |g 46(2007), 3, Seite 295-304 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)543988392 |w (DE-600)2386792-9 |w (DE-576)271774215 |x 1873-930X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:46 |g year:2007 |g number:3 |g pages:295-304 |
| 856 | |u https://philpapers.org/archive/OPPMTO.pdf |x unpaywall |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang |h repository [oa repository (via OAI-PMH title and first author match)] | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-007-0037-0 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 936 | u | w | |d 46 |j 2007 |e 3 |h 295-304 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4033648674 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1785589806 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220112043351 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 220112||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2021-12-30#188233E7ACF4605778F8E78F2EDD22F5EB329088 | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| OAS | |a 1 | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||
| SYE | 0 | 0 | |a Anselm,Anselmo,Anselmus,Cantuariensis, Anselmus,Anselmus,Ansshelmus Sankt,Canterbury, Anshelm von,Anselme,Anßhelmus,Anselmus,Anshelmus,Anßelmus,Anselmus,Ancelmus |