Kant and Anselm Philosophical Arguments

For instance, the modified version of the design discussion relies on empirical proof of intellectual design; specifically the experiential assertion of nomological matter could not have grown if certain basic elements of the world were to have varied even a little from what seemed. Similarly, cosmological discussion relies on certain experiential declarations concerning the description of the incidence of pragmatic actions. However, the ontological discussions are conceptual, in that, just as the suggestion making up the idea of a father means that each father is male. Similarly, the suggestions that make up the notion of God mean that God subsists in line with the ontological claim. Therefore, Anselm’s argument mentions that such a being exists, and he is the God of conventional Western theism.

Kant’s objects the ontological claims by mentioning that it mystifies the real meaning and the claim (Reasonable, 3). His second objection is that subsistence is not a predicate. Third, he objects contradiction of the proposition “God exists” as not leading to a disagreement. Lastly, he states that one cannot set up the subsistence of God only from people’s notions of God. Kant’s intentions were to elucidate the restrictions that the conventional claims had so that they did not seem loud. Kant tries to say that people cannot supplement subsistence as a possession to God. I believe that Kant’s critique objection is a good philosophical objection because Kant efficiently shattered the foundation of all metaphysical confusions in the philosophical arena using his Transcendental Idealism (IEP, 26).

Most of the non-logical philosophy up-to-date revolved around the question of whether Kant was right or not. What is more, it is my opinion that Kant is still significant and his analysis of Pure Reason is critically paramount radical work of art which will for all time be and persists to be imperative (Reasonable, 9). This is the reason some philosophers have come up with arguments that claim that instincts ought not to be interpreted as pictures, but as symbols that openly familiarize people with matter, instincts are reliant on their subsistence on subsisting things, thus illusions are impractical. However, they may be at liberty to carry out what is reasonably necessitated of them. Kant’s claim shows that he believes that people have the free will to do what is ethically appropriate (Philosophy, 11).