Anselm's Proslogion | Ontological Argument for God's Existence | Philosophy Core Concepts

[@daanv.d.g2397]

So glad to have found you man, doing a philosophy bachelor now as extra from finishing a biomed degree, very different mindsets and these vids help

[@daanv.d.g2397]

Also do you have a video about the text related to this “in defense of the foole”

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad the videos are useful for you

[@SoferiaNebruin]

Thank you! I am sending for the book. I really like his take on what we now refer to as "ontology." Great to get historical perspectives.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@severinkitanov6399]

Terrific lecture, Greg! I love the stuff you do, my friend!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@aisharena4109]

Thank you. You're explanation has helped me understand his strength and weakness of his argument.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@quynhhoang2341]

Thank you! Your videos really helped me understanding materials in my PHIL classes!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad the videos are helpful for you

[@natrium2307]

Thank you Dr. Sadler; I always enjoy your videos.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You’re very welcome

[@JoshV74656]

I've now read chapters 2-4 several times, and I still find the argument tricky. Using a contradiction as a proof of a related claim takes some effort to wrap my head around and while I think its a sound argument I still can't get over the feeling its misleading in some way. Regardless, I enjoyed all the Latin in this lecture. I often wonder how much of an original work like the Proslogion is lost in translation, listening to Dr. Sadler work through the Latin seems to make the message more authentic.

[@GregoryBSadler]

The argument is tricky.

[@Ghost_Freya]

Very well put together, I learn so much from you

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@Autobotmatt428]

Very well explained thank you.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@brycepardoe658]

This is amazing

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@paulkelly1162]

Thank you! I feel so deceived by my intro philosophy classes on this idea. Your presentation of it makes it feel, well, obvious. Regardless of its apologetic value, it's a beautiful religious meditation. I'm even disappointed by how folks like Plantinga don't seem to get it. I suppose I'll have to just read Anselm!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, it's always prudent to go to the sources, rather than relying on glosses by people who often haven't themselves read and understood the original

[@b_38_rakesh]

Good work man keep it up 👍

[@ivanprskalo9415]

How long is the Proslogion? I've been looking for PDF copies on the Internet and it just seems to short to me. They were like 27 or 12 pages long.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I think you found your answer there

[@ivanprskalo9415]

Thanks! I was really expecting something like a 700 page elaboration like the Summa Contra Gentiles or something. Thanks for the content! Good luck and God bless 😇

[@johnmccormick8765]

I have to say what a great explanation this is. Wikipedia/google summaries of the ontological argument do not give the real picture (Is that philosophical irony?) at all. This is actually a really interesting and very serious exploration by Anselm's keen mind seeking ultimate truths with the best tool to hand - his intellect. My immediate thought after watching this, if I may be frivolous, is that Monty Python's exclusion of Anselm from the philosopher song is an injustice that must be corrected!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you enjoyed the talk. Gotta say: I quit finding Monty Python funny or interesting when it comes to philosophy a few decades back

[@johnmccormick8765]

@@GregoryBSadler I now have the proslogion in my hands at last and look forward to it with relish. Your lectures are turning into my intellectual narcotic, if I may use an apparently pejorative term to describe your life's work. To be fair, though, I am caring for someone with a terminal illness and your food of ideas is better for me** than the food of the plate. **In more ways than one. I just watched the above for a second time - made complete sense on second viewing.

[@naughtyjasy]

Honest question, how then can we know what Q is, since we could always imagine something greater than Q immediately if we were to be able to know Q?? And does that make Q a concept that recedes further and further into the depths of the conception of our minds?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Read on in the text. Videos assume you're actually reading the work

[@alloycipher4528]

Is this the same Q from star trek the next generation?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Obviously not

[@Jacob-bq3mf]

I am using this is in my Introduction to Philosophy course - Fall 2023.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Cool

[@nathanielolson]

Thank you for the video! Of all the ontological arguments, I think Anselm’s is the most interesting.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I consider it the most interesting of those as well

[@matthewmaw8418]

You have an incredible ability to motivate me to dig into these texts. Would you consider a series of videos in Cur Deus Homo? There are interesting conversations concerning atonement in some circles around me, and I would love to understand this Anselm classic more deeply.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I would consider doing all of Anselm's works eventually. But all I plan to work on this semester are the de Libertate and a little bit of the de Condordia. For those who really want videos on a particular work in a ore definite time-frame, I do accept video commissions (have done that with some Heidegger stuff in recent years)

[@matthewmaw8418]

Gregory B. Sadler thank you for the work you do! I’ll be sure to keep an eye on everything coming out.

[@mistermusik]

Good presentation. Thanks.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@Kingfish179]

Aren't there potentially multiple things that could exist that we can't conceive of, given human finitude? If that's possible, then wouldn't these things fall into the category of "that than which nothing greater can be thought"? Forgive me, I'm a novice.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Not if you think it out further

[@Captain-Cosmo]

It is a possible that in the far and distant future a sufficiently advanced civilization discovered the true nature of the universe and traveled back in time to create the universe. No god required.

[@joelmacinnes2391]

How does one measure 'greatness'? Or is it assumed that by Q we are talking about God? (As God would be described as Q) But I would've thought then that if one did not believe in God, one could easily disagree with the statement Q, unless I've misgrasped it Might just be me but these are some points I didn't really understand

[@GregoryBSadler]

Time for you to spend some time reading the text, I'd say

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@Hexalobular Let me show you the door, little buittinski

[@bradenglass4347]

Anselm and tertullian are good reads

[@GregoryBSadler]

That's quite true

[@dosto_viski8292]

Super! Thank you very much :,)

[@GregoryBSadler]

You’re welcome!