The Ontological Argument (1 of 2) | by MrMcMillanREvis

Показать описание

Рекомендации по теме

Комментарии

please make more videos for AS and A2, you saved my life at GCSE and I need you to continue saving my life at A level.

siren

Most accessible explanation of the ontological argument I've yet heard.

daystar

Thank you so much MrMcMillan, after struggling throughout the school year and then achieving an A grade in my AS philosophy exam, I cannot thank you enough. Your videos are perfectly made with simplicity and detail which gave me a perfect understanding which I just could not gain in class. Your videos on the cosomological/ontological argument and the problem of evil came up in the exam, thank you for making these. Would love to see some more A2 content though !

floydmayweather

This argument is ingenius because you feel something is wrong with it but at the same time you can't say exactly what's wrong.

Watcher

This has completely salvaged my Philosophy A-Level! Thank you for explaining this with clarity and eloquence

emilygamon

My teacher for philosophy never taught us anything. She left mid year and we did nothing. I watched this videos back to back the week before exam and because of you I got a B for my a level. Thank you so much.

mrminne

Hi, I see it's been about 5 months since your last upload. I'm an A-level student who is currently doing A2 philosophy and ethics as a subject. During my AS exams last year, I got 192 UMS out 0f 200UMS (Grade A) all thanks to this guy. Your videos about the cosmological argument and the Problem of Evil were two of the three questions I wrote about in my exam. I only have you to thank for the grade I've achieved! So thank you very much!

For A2 - I am currently using your ontological argument video as one of my revision tools, however I was wondering if you could make a revision video on life after death (immortality of the soul, rebirth, resurrection and reincarnation) and Aristotle's Natural Moral Law?

It's just a request and it would be awesome you could do it! But again, thank you for everything you've done so far and I hope you continue these helpful videos!

VxHyDrxV

This is so clearly explained and infinitely helpful. Thank you!

notquitebelle

really good explanation. Is anyone else left with the feeling that they've been conned by this? that Anselm just makes arbitrary leaps that look like logic and turn out to be sophistry?

MrMartibobs

Thank you so much, you literally just saved me from hours of confusion, I understood more from this short video than I did from my two-hour lecture on the topic :)

mark

The exam is today! Thanks for the videos! Hopefully it pays off

JordanTyWood

Writing my Philosophy paper this Friday. this helped me so much. Shout out from South Africa

nkanyiso

polar bears live in the north pole but apart from that this video is great and really useful

gecentrism

I have a question that really really bothers me. So I hope someone can help me with this or give me some additional ideas.
Some critics of the ontological argument say that existence is not a property that adds something new to the definition of a certain idea or thing. I kind of see where they are coming from, but I have issues with this idea. I mean, isn't it sometimes a part of a definition of something whether it exists in reality or not? Let's take the example of Frankenstein. Frankenstein is a Genevese scientist who created a living monster. But, over all, he is a fictional character. I mean, isn't the fact that Frankenstein does not exist in reality a part of his definition in a way? Or let's put it like this: Would we ever say someone that really exists is Frankenstein? Like for example, if we watch a film with Frankenstein in it, we wouldn't say the person playing the role of Frankenstein is actually Frankenstein, but we would say it is an actor who represents the fictional character of Frankenstein, wouln't we? Or is this only so, because we know that the actor did not REALLY create a monster and that he is not REALLY a scientist?
So, building on this idea, isn't it maybe more important what relationship the different properties of an idea or thing have? Like for example, we can say Frankenstein is a man who has black hair and is a fictional character. But it is not necessary for someone to have black hair to be a fictional character: fictionality does not determine the property of black hair. Applied to the ontological argument, one could say it is not necessary for something to exist in order to be "the greatest being" because existence is not greater than non-existence. Existence and non-existence are simply two different totally neutral modes of being so to speak, but neither one of them is in a way "greater" than the other one. So wouldn't that actually be the real point of criticism about the ontological argument, and not so much that existence is not a property?

JaxDH