St. Anselm
St. Anselm is a philosopher and was an archbishop in Canterbury in the late 11th century. He first develop
the ontological argument in the part 1 and 2 of his book – the proslogion (1078). His main argument about the
proof of God’s existence was develop in Proslogion 2. He begins by defining God as, “that than which nothing great
can be conceived”. It just simply means that there could be nothing more possible to think of something greater of
value or qualities than God. Even those who don’t believe in God’s existence atleast has a concept of God in them.
When we have a concept of God we might ask that if God does really exist or just in mere understanding?
If God existed in mere understanding then we could conceive of a being great (one which existed).
Therefore the greatest conceivable being cannot exist in the mind only, but must exist in reality as well. It is
impossible to conceive of a ‘greatest being’ which does not really exist, since then it would not be the greatest.
Existence is a real property which a true concept of God must possess. Existence is a ‘great making property’. If we
have a true concept of God then He MUST exist.
SOREN KIERKEGAARD
Leap of Faith - A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something
without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence. It is an act commonly associated with religious belief as many
religions consider faith to be an essential element of piety. A leap of faith according to Kierkegaard involves
circularity insofar as a leap is made by faith.[1] In his book The Concept of Anxiety he describes the core part of the
leap of faith, the leap. He does this using the famous story of Adam and Eve, particularly Adam's qualitative leap
into sin. Adam's leap signifies a change from one quality to another, mainly the quality of possessing no sin to the
quality of possessing sin. Kierkegaard maintains that the transition from one quality to another can take place only
by a "leap" (Thomte 232). When the transition happens, one moves directly from one state to the other, never
possessing both qualities.
It is important to understand that Kierkegaard felt a leap of faith was necessary in accepting Christianity due to the
paradoxes that exist in Christianity. In his book Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard delves deep into the
paradoxes that Christianity presents. One of these is the belief that there existed a being (Jesus) who is both 100%
man and 100% God. Since neither logic nor reason can reconcile this, one would require faith to believe it in light of
the paradox. So, when one decides to have faith that a being existed as both God and man, one makes a qualitative
change from non-belief to belief, and thusly makes a 'leap of faith' that it is true.
Fathering Existential philosophy, Søren Kierkegaard’s emphatic dogmatism, coupled with his graceful plunge into
the abyss of ontological inquiry, brought about the issue of orienting one’s psychological state with the infinite
abyss of possibilities that constitutes life. “The Concept of Anxiety” (1844) elucidates the psychological issue of
anxiety, which man experiences while living in a state of uncontrollable possibility. Kierkegaard interplays the
dogmatism of original sin with the concept of anxiety, as outlined by the work’s subtitle, “A simple
psychologically orienting deliberation on the dogmatic issue of hereditary sin.” According to Kierkegaard,
hereditary sin stabilizes the psychological state of anxiety through man’s concern to live righteously (that is,
without sin) which then necessitates faith, as a sort of map on how to navigate through the abyss appropriately.
Kierkegaard posits that anxiety preempted the original sin, insofar as God told Adam to not pick the apple from the
tree, which manifested the existence of either “good” or “evil” in the abyss of possibility. Dogmatic assumption of
original sin manifests as both an issue of metaphysical nature, and as psychological experience of anxiety,
“If sin is dealt with in psychology, the mood becomes that of persistent observation…. Sin does not properly belong
in any science, but it is the subject of a sermon, in which the single individual speaks as the single individual to the
single individual.” (14)
Kierkegaard couples dogmatism and psychology, as he wishes to describe the psychological effects of dogmatism,
beginning with Adam’s original sin. Adam’s predicament of freedom of choice yielded anxiety, surrounding the
possibility of sin, for the eternity of humanity. Picking the apple represented the plunge into an abyss of sinfulness,
which Kierkegaard represents as ‘the fall’, whereby sin, and the subsequent guilt, permeated the eternity of
humanity with hereditary sin.
‘The fall’, being the moment of the plunge into the abyss of sin, is realized by Kierkegaard as the ‘qualitative leap’
(into sin). This leap happens at the moment when freedom from guilt is abandoned, and sinfulness is introduced.
Kierkegaard recognizes the specific statement of Genisis that sin was deposited into the world at that
very moment. Emphasis on the moment as a piece of time is emphasized by this, and also by Kierkegaard,
“Thus sin comes into the world as the sudden, i. e., by a leap; but this leap also posits the quality and is
presupposed by the quality and the quality by the leap.” (31)
Exposition of this leap as ‘qualitative’ is directly in opposition to Kierkegaard’s quantitative understanding of sin,
wherein sin is realized in it’s eternity, as it has compounded hereditarily since the original sin. Compounded sin also
substantiates the exponential growth of guilt, which culminates as objective anxiety. Kierkegaard represents the
growth of objective anxiety through the sin of lustfulness during the process of reproduction. How can man not be
guilty, when conceived through sin? Kierkegaard further conceptualizes “good” and “evil” as presupposed and
inescapable,
“When sin is posited in the particular individual by the qualitative leap, the difference between good and evil is also
posited… We have said what we again repeat, that sin presupposes itself.” (112)
Despite the inability to control one’s own conception, and therefore the inability to be born in freedom from sin,
Kierkegaard asserts that freedom to choose further sinfulness is not arbitrary. Hence, Kierkegaard says, ”To speak
of good and evil as the objects of freedom finitizes both freedom and the concepts of good and evil.” (124) In this,
he means that freedom is multifaceted; Choice between “good” and “evil” differentiate freedom of choice from
free will. Because of man’s objective anxiety about sin, due to it’s presupposition, man is willed towards finding
the path towards righteousness. Limitation of free will uncovers the daunting actuality of man’s finitude in the face
of infinite abyss of possibility. Kierkegaard describes the “anxiety in creation,” as the “Entrapment in the infinitude
of possibility” (80).
As man stands, facing the plunge into the abyss of possible sin, the overwhelming sensation of finitude is described
by Kierkegaard as “dizziness” (61). Kierkegaard frames the individual’s ‘dizziness’ (apropos the infinity of
possibilities of existence) as a “gathering of possibilities of self” (78). Generation of ‘self’ is the process, beginning
with a transition from speculation of possibilities, to anxiety about those possibilities, to the actuality of decision
and the plunge in to the abyss. Kierkegaard delineates the transition as the momentary acquisition of earnestness
to one’s self. Kierkegaard claims that the present, as thought about in the conventional sense, does not really exist.
If time is a passing by of events, then the present is simply a dividing line between the past and future that cannot
be rigidly defined to encompass a definite amount of time. It is the reference point that time progresses past. This
demonstrates the notion that the present is a period in which transition may occur. Kierkegaard writes about the
perspective of self in transition,
“inwardness is precisely the fountain that springs up unto eternal life, and what issues from this fountain is
precisely earnestness.” (142)
This tells us that to grasp the possibility of the abyss, we must seek inwardness, and to reach inwardness we must
develop earnestness. Earnestness is a special connection between self-consciousness and feeling. Being earnest
requires an honest awareness of our true selves. There is a type of self-reflection involved, but it is strictly in a
spiritual sense, and it concerns action, not contemplation. Earnestness allows original thought and feeling to
precede actions undertaken in the temporal world; this connects one’s actions to spiritual possibility and prevents
finite concerns from overwhelming one’s spiritual growth.
Inwardness plus the earnestness that it entails set the stage for a transition into faith. Kierkegaard does not
describe that leap, but he provides an understanding of how anxiety can be dealt with in a positive manner that will
allow that next leap. Inwardness permits one to accept the natural and inextricable place that anxiety occupies in
human life and then use it to spiritual advantage.
Kierkegaard’s conception of earnestness as the individual’s path towards righteousness, in opposition to the
alternative “evil”, presupposes the necessity for man to have faith in prevailing over evil. Faith is posited by the
individual’s ability to overcome the psychological state of anxiety, and live righteously both because of and in spite
of hereditary sin. Without faith in the ability to be righteous, man would be stuck in an anxiety limbo. Man’s leap to
faith is necessitated by man’s need to supplement the psychological concept of anxiety and the dogmatic issue of
hereditary sin.
ARISTOTLE
"Animal" is a universal, because it covers many different "particulars" such as men, elephants,
dogs, etc.
In the world of things we cannot sense (like animals), a universal might be "virtue" because it covers
many particular things we call "virtue".
Universals were once called "forms" by Plato, and "essenes" (essences) by Aristotle. Aristotle's
theory is that they were to be found "in the things" and it was part of our intellectual process to detect
the essence of "rock" in every boulder, pebble, etc that we found--after discovering it for the first time
as a child.
Aristotle was able to place the universal "in the thing" because he believed them to be metaphysical.
His most ardent proponent in the 20th century discovered his mistake:
"Aristotle held that definitions refer to metaphysical essences, which exist in concretes as a special
element or formative power, and he held that the process of concept-formation depends on a kind of
direct intuition by which man’s mind grasps these essences and forms concepts accordingly.
"Aristotle regarded “essence” as metaphysical; Objectivism [her philosophy based on Aristotle]
regards it as epistemological." This means that what we believe to be a universal is found in our way
of thinking. Not all cultures see the same "universal". Some cultures see dogs as food. Obviously to
see a dog as something other than "man's best friend", those cultures see it as "food".