Kant identified the trick card up Anselm's sleeve as his slippery assumption?

Forums: Grammar, Esl, English
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Does "Kant identified the trick card up Anselm's sleeve as his slippery assumption" mean "Kant confirmed that the trick card/"magic wand" that was in Anselm's pocket was his tricky hypothesis"?

Context:

The most definitive refutations of the ontological argument are
usually attributed to the philosophers David Hume (1711-76) and
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant identified the trick card up
Anselm's sleeve as his slippery assumption that 'existence' is more
'perfect' than non-existence. The American philosopher Norman
Malcolm put it like this: 'The doctrine that existence is a perfection
is remarkably queer. It makes sense and is true to say that my future
house will be a better one if it is insulated than if it is not insulated;
but what could it mean to say that it will be a better house if it
exists than if it does not?' Another philosopher, the Australian
Douglas Gasking, made the point with his ironic 'proof that God
does not exist (Anselm's contemporary Gaunilo had suggested a
somewhat similar reductio).

More: Richard Dawkins The God Delusion

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 553 • Replies: 7

No top replies

View best answer, chosen by oristarA

@oristarA,

Yes.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Yes.

Thanks.
BTW, do you like this book, McTag?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

I like Dawkins.

There is another book, "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, which examines the major monotheistic religions, which is similar, interesting, and worth a look.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

I like Dawkins.

There is another book, "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, which examines the major monotheistic religions, which is similar, interesting, and worth a look.

I'll read the book and will not let it slip away.
Have you completed reading Dawkins' The God Delusion?

I think Dawkins' English is cool. I'd like to take it as a model. Do you think whether I'm reasonable here?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

Do you think whether I'm reasonable here?

Do you think that is reasonable?
Do you think I'm being reasonable here?
but
I wonder whether I'm being reasonable here.

Yes I do, Dawkins' style, as far as I recall, is modern and clear.
Yes, I finished that book.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Quote:
Do you think whether I'm reasonable here?

Do you think that is reasonable?
Do you think I'm being reasonable here?
but
I wonder whether I'm being reasonable here.

Yes I do, Dawkins' style, as far as I recall, is modern and clear.
Yes, I finished that book.

Thank you, McTag.
I wonder the nuance between "I'm reasonable" and "I'm being reasonable." I'm really puzzled - why the former fails to work.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Difficult to say.
"Whether" usually indicates a choice: whether, or not. So the phrase "Do you think whether I'm reasonable here?" doesn't really work.
The phrases I've suggested are more colloquial.

0 Replies

Kant identified the trick card up Anselm's sleeve as his slippery assumption?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know