1. Briefly explain St. Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God. Explain one problem that this argument faces.
St Anselm’s ontological argument is an attempt at proving the existence of god through a purely. Anselm gets into the idea of the definition of God. In that definition he believes that God, he believes the definition of God is that nothing greater can be conceived. He believes that the greatest being conceivable must exist because otherwise it is not the greatest being conceived since existence is greater than non-existence. Anselm uses this line of thought to “prove” the existence of God.
There are a number of problems with this argument. Because if one believes that the ontological argument is enough to satisfy the proof for the existence of God, then a lot of other things begin existing which were originally conceived has conceptions. One’s conception of the greatest Island in the world must also exist because part of its definition entails existence.
2. Briefly explain the problem of evil, as set forth by J.L. Mackie in his paper, “Evil and Omnipotence.” A theist might try to solve the problem of evil by arguing that because there is evil in the world, humans can exercise freewill in choosing to do good rather than evil. Therefore, he might argue; the world is a better place with some evil in it than it would be if there were no evil at all. Explain one problem that Mackie sees with this proposed solution.
Mackie believed that evil showed that there were either no gods or the gods of the major religion did not exist. He believes that the state of suffering and destruction in the universe meant that God either did not exist, was not omnipotent or was not all benevolent. Does not want a theist to totally abandon his belief in god, so long as he or she agrees that God is not all good. He believes that few people would take this route though, preferring to not believe in god than believe in a god that is not all good.
3. Explain what a monad is, according to Leibniz. Given the nature of monads, how would Leibniz’s view of reality explain the apparent presence of change in the world and the nature of space and time?
Monads are part of Leibniz’s metaphysics. He believed that monads were non-physical, indestructible, existing substances that imbued matter with its life. Leibniz believes that there is nothing to be altered, changed or destroyed about a monad because there are beyond the physical.
Leibniz believes that Monads are constantly in motion and are responsible for the change in the world. Leibniz believes in an internal activity called appetition that he believes is the principle of change in the universe. Monads are not inert, but are subject to a plurality of states and relationships, and these transitions between monads are what he attributes to change.
4. Explain what determinism is. Why would freewill be impossible if determinism is true? How would an indeterminist challenge the determinist position? Explain one problem with the indeterminist position.
Determinism believes that the context of the universe governs one individual’s life. A determinist would look at a homicide and believe that this was not the result of the person killing someone, but it is the result of every event in the universe which conspired with time to create it as an inescapable occurrence. One challenge to the determinist system is to put forth is to show how morality and ethics and punishments for offenses all become incoherent under a deterministic view of the world. One problem with the indeterminist position is that if humans are entities acting in a system, then it does seem that choice and the ability to have choice is a result of perception, but that in the larger picture of the cosmos, we are governed by a casual chain of events.
5. How does Aristotle use his view about the unique function of human beings (as opposed to the functions of plants and animals) to show that happiness for human beings consists in the exercise of rationality? Why would Aristotle think that a successful criminal or gangster would not be living a good life, even though such a person might be exercising his rational abilities effectively in enabling him to be a successful gangster or criminal?
Aristotle believed that human beings were social animals. He believed that personal happiness was a choice. He believed that happiness came when a person discovered their purpose and then pursued it. He also believed that happiness was a function of virtue and that virtuous people could not share in happiness the way that virtuous people could. A good person, amongst friends, who are living out his “destiny” would have the requirements for happiness according to Aristotle. This is why even a person exercising his talents on being a gangster would not be happy, because he would lack virtue.
