| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{comic
| + | Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; |
| − | | number = 1505
| |
| − | | date = March 30, 2015
| |
| − | | title = Ontological Argument
| |
| − | | image = ontological argument.png
| |
| − | | titletext = A God who holds the world record for eating the most skateboards is greater than a God who does not hold that record.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Explanation==
| + | I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. |
| | | | |
| − | {{w|Ontology}} is the study of {{w|being}}, {{w|reality}}, and {{w|existence}}. “The {{w|ontological argument}}” is an attempt at proving the existence of {{w|God}} through reasoning about the {{w|nature}} of “being”.
| + | The evil that men do lives after them; |
| | + | |
| | + | The good is oft interred with their bones; |
| | | | |
| − | [[Megan]]'s statement in the comic is likely a reference to what is considered the first ontological argument, that of 11th Century philosopher {{w|St. Anselm of Canterbury}}. His argument starts by defining God as “that than which nothing greater can be {{w|concept|conceive}}d”. Another step in the argument is that you can conceive of such a being even if you don't believe it exists. Yet another step is the statement that a being, of which one can conceive, and which exists, is certainly greater than a being of which one can conceive and which does not exist. Implicit in the argument are two essential premises, both of which are controversial. These are a) that the existence of such a being is possible, and b) that existence is a great-making quality.
| + | So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus |
| | + | |
| | + | Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: |
| | + | |
| | + | If it were so, it was a grievous fault, |
| | + | |
| | + | And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it. |
| | + | |
| | + | Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest– |
| | + | |
| | + | For Brutus is an honourable man; |
| | + | |
| | + | So are they all, all honourable men– |
| | + | |
| | + | Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral. |
| | + | |
| | + | He was my friend, faithful and just to me: |
| | + | |
| | + | But Brutus says he was ambitious; |
| | + | |
| | + | And Brutus is an honourable man. |
| | + | |
| | + | He hath brought many captives home to Rome |
| | | | |
| − | The comic makes fun of Anselm's ontological argument by extending to absurdity the claim that a being who exists is greater than one who does not exist, and that therefore God must exist. A God who can disprove the ontological argument must be greater than one who cannot disprove the ontological argument, therefore the ontological argument proves the existence of a God that disproves it. This argument, though a joke, carries some weight. If Anselm's argument is sound, then disproving it is impossible, and God cannot do it. But if doing things is a great-making quality (a common assumption), then surely doing impossible things would be an even stronger great-making quality. Therefore the argument is able to be disproven, albeit only by God, which contradicts the initial premise that the argument is sound. Therefore, either doing things is not great-making, or the entire ontological argument is invalid reasoning.
| + | Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: |
| | + | Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? |
| | | | |
| − | The comic also may be drawing an analogy to the {{w|omnipotence paradox}}, as it also refers to the idea that God's power would be greater if He could do the logically impossible. If [[Randall]] believes that Anselm's ontological argument is logically sound and based on true premises, then he should think it is impossible to disprove. Therefore, he references the omnipotence paradox by requiring that God do such an impossible thing in order to have maximally great power.
| + | When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: |
| | | | |
| − | A popular parody of the ontological argument is that of {{w|Richard Dawkins}}, in his best-selling book “{{w|The God Delusion}}”. His parody is a version of the argument which attempts to prove that God does not exist. It is similar in approach to this comic and to the omnipotence paradox, in that it also requires a God that can do the logically impossible. In Dawkins' version—[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontological_argument&oldid=691165762#Douglas_Gasking borrowed from the Australian philosopher Douglas Gasking]—God's greatness is demonstrated by his creation of the world. A being that somehow overcomes the great handicap of not existing and goes on to create the world would certainly be greater than a being that exists and creates the world. Therefore God, who by definition is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, must not exist.
| + | Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: |
| | | | |
| − | Another, rather more famous parody, but which is entirely unrelated to the comic in approach, is that of {{w|Gaunilo of Marmoutiers}}, in which he argues for the existence of a maximally great island. This parody, added to the comic, seems to tell us what happened to the legendary {{w|Atlantis}}. It is worth noting that Anselm himself rebutted Gaunilo's argument, claiming that it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Anselm's original argument.
| + | Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; |
| | | | |
| − | Not all ontological arguments for the existence of God rely on the notion that a God that exists is greater than one that does not exist. Examples include the modal ontological argument from {{w|Alvin Plantinga}}, and {{w|Gödel's ontological proof}}. {{w|Graham Oppy}}, an authority on ontological arguments, attempts to classify [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ here] what exactly makes arguments ontological; he concludes that it is that they are a priori in nature. He also classifies them into eight categories: {{w|definitional}}, conceptual, modal, {{w|Meinongian}}, {{w|experiential}}, {{w|mereology|mereological}}, higher order, and {{w|Hegelian}}.
| + | And Brutus is an honourable man. |
| | | | |
| − | This comic, in particular in the way Megan and [[Cueball]] are walking and in its reference to theology, greatly resembles the earlier comic [[1315: Questions for God]].
| + | You all did see that on the Lupercal |
| | | | |
| − | The title text carries the absurdity a step further by stating that a God holding the record for eating the most skateboards is better than a God without it, continuing the logic in the comic.
| + | I thrice presented him a kingly crown, |
| | | | |
| − | ==Transcript==
| + | Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? |
| − | :[Megan and Cueball are walking side-by-side.] | |
| − | :Megan: ...but wouldn't a God who could find a flaw in the ontological argument be even '''''greater?'''''
| |
| | | | |
| − | {{comic discussion}}
| + | Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; |
| − | [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
| + | |
| − | [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
| + | And, sure, he is an honourable man. |
| − | [[Category:Philosophy]]
| + | |
| − | [[Category:Religion]]
| + | I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, |
| | + | |
| | + | But here I am to speak what I do know. |
| | + | |
| | + | You all did love him once, not without cause: |
| | + | |
| | + | What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him? |
| | + | |
| | + | O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, |
| | + | |
| | + | And men have lost their reason. Bear with me; |
| | + | |
| | + | My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, |
| | + | |
| | + | And I must pause till it come back to me. |
