ASSIGNMENT FEEDBACK SHEET Please add your details in the top sections of this form and paste the form at the top of your assignment before uploading
ASSIGNMENT FEEDBACK SHEET Please add your details in the top sections of this form and paste the form at the top of your assignment before uploading the assignment to Moodle. Leave the bottom sections for your marker to complete.
Student Name: LEAVE NAME BLANK FOR ANONYMOUS MARKING
Student Number: 220133285
Programme: Religion and Theology
Module Title: Values and Virtues
Component (1/2): Assignment Title: Write up of a seminar reading
Student Declaration (Please ensure each statement is true and then tick in the box)
The work is wholly mine and is not plagiarised from other sources or from other students. Any use of other peoples work has been acknowledged with references.
I have provided a bibliography, which contains a minimum of four in Level 4, six in Level 5 and eight in Level 6 - academic books or articles (non-academic books and websites not included in the minimum).
The bibliography has references to it provided in the text.
I have used at least point 12 type size in a standard font, such as Arial, Times New Roman, or Calibri, at least 1.5 line spacing and there are page numbers.
I have provided a word count
STUDENT FEEDBACK REQUEST BASED ON PREVIOUS FEEDBACK (Please identify personal targets for improvement.)
TUTOR TO COMPLETE Markers Initials: Date:
MARK Please note: This mark is indicative and may be subject to moderation and or internal examining and may be adjusted up or down.
Strengths of the work and general comments:
You are invited to book a tutorial with the marker to discuss this feedback. Email the marker to request a Teams meeting.
Areas that can be improved on for future work:
You will be invited to discuss this section with your Academic Tutor Please also refer to the Assessment Grid below
Level 6 PASS GRADESFAIL GRADES
(High 1st: 100-85) (1st class: 84 - 70) (2:1: 69 - 60) (2:2: 59 - 50) (3rd class: 49 - 40) (Fail: 39 - 20) (Serious fail: 19 - 0)
Knowledge & UnderstandingA systematic and sophisticated breadth/depth of knowledge and critical understanding of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices. Systematic and sophisticated knowledge and critical understanding of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices. Detailed systematic knowledge and critical understanding of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices. Systematic knowledge and critical understanding of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices, though with some limitations in breadth/ depth. An attempt at systematic knowledge and critical understanding of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices, but limited in scope and/or accuracy. Lacks systematic knowledge and critical understanding of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices. Little or no evidence of systematic knowledge and critical understanding of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices.
Analysis and Evaluation An exceptional level of critical analysis of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices and evaluation of relevant materials. Sophisticated and highly reasoned arguments are expressed with exemplary clarity and precision, exceptionally persuasive and balanced. A near faultless structure in support of the argument, relevant to the task/format. Sustained, coherent and insightful critical analysis of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices and evaluation of relevant materials. Construction of a clearly reasoned, sophisticated and articulate argument that is persuasive and balanced. Highly effective structure in support of the argument, relevant to the task/format. Consistent and accurate critical analysis of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices and evaluation of relevant materials. Construction of a rational, persuasive and balanced argument, with a good attempt at complexity/ sophistication. Effective structure in support of the argument, relevant to the task/format. Critical analysis of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices, though parts of the work may be descriptive. A consistent attempt to construct a rational, persuasive and balanced argument, though may be lacking in complexity. There is an attempt at a logical structure, though this may be overly simplistic. Basic ability to critically analyse and evaluate sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices, but limited in depth, with the work being overly descriptive. Attempt to construct a rational, persuasive and balanced argument, but some limitations in clarity, complexity, relevance and/or articulation. Weak critical analysis of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices, evidenced through work that is superficial in its evaluation of material. May demonstrate gaps in argument and choppy structure. Little or no evidence of critical analysis and evaluation of sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices, with no argument developed. No logical progression or sequencing of the work.
Research and Inquiry Research beyond normal expectations for the work, demonstrated by sophisticated, detailed and critical engagement with a vast breadth/depth of important and potentially challenging/ advanced literature crossing disciplinary boundaries.
A significant breadth/depth of research demonstrated through a detailed, critical and sophisticated engagement with highly relevant literature and disciplines significantly beyond taught (e.g. lecture/seminar) material. Strong research skills, demonstrated through a critical and detailed engagement with a range of relevant literature and disciplines beyond taught (e.g. lecture/seminar) material. Clear evidence of research skills demonstrated through critical and detailed engagement with relevant literature across disciplines consistent with taught content.
Adequate evidence of research skills, through critical use of primary and secondary sources from a range of disciplines; detailed awareness and/or appropriateness; but some replication of taught (e.g. lecture/seminar) material. Inadequate evidence of research skills, demonstrated through a severely limited range of reading and engagement with accessed literature. Little or no evidence of research skills, demonstrated through a clear lack of reading and engagement with literature in the production of the work.
Written Communication Professional, sophisticated communication, with exceptional clarity and/or reader engagement, and a flawless command of the English language. An exceptional ability to paraphrase, link ideas from complex material and write in own distinct voice. Professional communication that holds the attention of its reader throughout. Excellent clarity and fluency, with a broad vocabulary and a pertinent use of subject terminology. Excellent grasp of spelling, punctuation grammar and paragraphing. Excellent paraphrasing and linking of key ideas from complex literature. Fluent and coherent communication that engages the reader. Clear and effective use of a subject vocabulary relevant terminology. A high level of competency with spelling, punctuation, grammar, and paragraphing. Strong paraphrasing of complex material that is linked successfully. Mostly fluent and coherent communication, with idiomatic use of vocabulary and relevant terminology. Overall, good grasp of syntax, though there may be some errors or inconsistencies. Paraphrase may simplify complex material or contain weak links; work may lack a distinct voice. Adequate clarity of academic expression and communication of complex material. Occasional drift towards superficial or incoherent language. Possible over-use of quotations and/or disjointed paraphrasing. Limited clarity and/or structure in communication of complex material, and/or inadequate demonstration of language conventions. Highly limited clarity and/or structure in communication. Inadequate demonstration of language conventions. Highly limited/no engagement with complex material.
Presentation and ReferencingFaultless referencing and presentation. Quotations are highly pertinent in use, near flawless integration, delivering maximum impact. Technically excellent, accurate referencing and presentation. Judicious use of direct quotations, clearly integrated and distinguishable from indirect citations. Accurate and consistent referencing and presentation. Direct quotations integrated and distinguishable from indirect citations. Generally accurate and consistent referencing and presentation. Quotations mostly pertinent and integrated. Follows academic conventions. Adequate use of referencing. Adheres to academic conventions and presentation, although minor errors may be present. Poor referencing and presentation; errors with academic conventions. Requires significant development for accurate referencing and presentation.
Assignment
Seminar Reading Write Up Immanuel Kant: Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals Chapter 1: Moving from common-sense knowledge to philosophical knowledge of moralityIn this critical analysis, I aim to evidence an analytical understanding of Kantian deontology.
Kant declares his morality upon the theory that consequences of actions hold no importance (deontology), acting solely upon good will and duty based on rational nature establishes an actions worthiness. Kant defines good will as acting according to moral law with no other desire, that which is good in and of itself, the good will of this person would sparkle like a jewel all by itself, as something that had its full worth in itself (p.6). Kant outlines from this that any action desirous of consequences like happiness or being motivated by anything apart from good will is therefore committed out of personal gain and not treating others as ends, instead using them as a means of manipulation. Hence, an actions consequence cannot be predicted or considered, as this denotes a motivation other than duty, thus treating people as means to ends by developing emotions like self-love and pride in accordance with consequences.
Duty is reliant on good will, which is expressed through devotion to and fulfilment of moral law, the concept that always takes first place in judging the total worth of our actions (p.7). This is praiseworthy as it reduces the likelihood of acting for self-interest. Additionally, Kants non-consequentialist approach ensures that moral luck ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"OqaG95jh","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Williams, 1981)","plainCitation":"(Williams, 1981)","dontUpdate":true,"noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":525,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/sYwfrU2Z/items/PUFIXDBJ"],"itemData":{"id":525,"type":"book","event-place":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","publisher-place":"Cambridge","title":"Moral Luck","author":[{"family":"Williams","given":"Bernard"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1981"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Williams, 1981, p.38) fails to impact an actions worthiness, a further strength of deontology.
Kant pertains morality as an apriori aspect of rationality within humans, as humans hold the capacity of moral reasoning, The thought of law in itself that only a rational being can have (p.10). Kant defines that only humans with autonomy (freedom to act free from desires), hold moral reasoning and thus act as responsible moral agents. Therefore, the reciprocity of autonomy and the ability of reason are essential to rationality, which is in itself an end. Acting dutifully adhering to universal moral law is Kants only descriptor of a righteous action.
Kant then explicates the categorical imperative. This is the concept that certain maxims: principles on which we act, which, if universalized among the entire population unconditionally and without exception, enable the treatment of individuals as ends alone and not for personal means (p.29). Lying exemplifies the categorical imperatives reliance upon always treating others as ends in themselves and not means to ends, since lying breaks trust with another to avoid undesirable consequences. Actions, therefore, should be weighed according to universalizable categorical imperative of moral worth. Kant sees humans as subjective universal law makers and our maxims should be consistent, respect human dignity and be universally acceptable and obeyed. Kant then equates common sense morality to rational nature and universal law through maxims being judged on their universalizability, treating all humanity as ends is thus a rational, universal goal.
In conclusion, I critique that Kant implies humans become impersonal, unemotional and impartial rational agents, which is problematic, as personality and partiality are natural to actions like caring and counselling. The moral agent's character, emotions and personality are critical to the effectiveness and outcome of morality (Williams & Lear, 2011, p.51). Kant places emotion inferior to rationality and assumes irrational decision frameworks like emotions shouldnt influence morality. However, humans are naturally emotional and emotions are intelligent and commonly intuitive for moral decision making ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"yCkdxJ0r","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Nussbaum, 2003)","plainCitation":"(Nussbaum, 2003)","dontUpdate":true,"noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":444,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/sYwfrU2Z/items/J9S6YAA3"],"itemData":{"id":444,"type":"book","abstract":"What is it to grieve for the death of a parent? More literary and experiential than other philosopical works on emotion, Upheavals of Thought will engage the reader who has ever stopped to ask that question. Emotions such as grief, fear, anger and love seem to be alien forces that disturb our thoughts and plans. Yet they also embody some of our deepest thoughts--about the importance of the people we love, about the vulnerability of our bodies and our plans to events beyond our control. In this wide-ranging book, based on her Gifford Lectures, philosopher Martha Nussbaum draws on philosophy, psychology, anthropology, music and literature to illuminate the role emotions play in our thoughts about important goals. Starting with an account of her own mother's death, she argues that emotions are intelligent appraisals of a world that we do not control, in the light of our own most significant goals and plans. She then investigates the implications of this idea for normative issues, analyzing the role of compassion in private and public reasoning and the attempts of authors both philosophical and literary to purify or reform the emotion of erotic love. Ultimately, she illuminates the structure of emotions and argues that once we understand the complex intelligence of emotions we will also have new reasons to value works of literature as sources of ethical education. Martha C. Nussbaum is Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago, appointed in Law School, Philosophy department, and Divinity School, and an Associate in Classics. A leading scholar in ancient Greek ethics, aesthetics and literature, her previous books include The Fragility of Goodness (Cambridge, 1986), Loves's Knowledge (Oxford, 1992), Poetic Justice (Beacon Press, 1997), The Therapy of Desire (Princeton, 1996), Cultivating Humanity (Harvard, 1997), and Sex and Social Justice (Oxford, 1999). Her reviews have appeared in the New York Times, Boston Globe, New York Review of Books, and New Republic.","event-place":"Cambridge","ISBN":"978-0-521-53182-5","language":"en","number-of-pages":"770","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","publisher-place":"Cambridge","source":"Google Books","title":"Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions","title-short":"Upheavals of Thought","author":[{"family":"Nussbaum","given":"Martha C."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2003",4,14]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Nussbaum, 2003, p.135).
549 words
Bibliography:
Bennett, J. (2017) Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant. Available at: https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf.
ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Nussbaum, M.C. (2003) Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, B. (1981) Moral Luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, B. and Lear, J. (2011) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge.
ASSIGNMENT FEEDBACK SHEET Please add your details in the top sections of this form and paste the form at the top of your assignment before uploading the assignment to Moodle. Leave the bottom sections for your marker to complete.
Do not include your name. Do include your student number.
Student Number: 220133285
Programme: Religion and Theology
Module Title: Philosophy and Religion
Component (1/2): Assignment Title: Seminar Reading Critical Analysis
Programme Learning Outcomes: Enter the numbers for specific PLOs assessed in this module (see below)
Student Declaration (Please ensure each statement is true and then tick in the box)
The work is wholly mine and is not plagiarised from other sources or from other students. Any use of other peoples work has been acknowledged with references.
I have provided a bibliography, which contains a minimum of four in Level 4, six in Level 5 and eight in Level 6 - academic books or articles (non-academic books and websites not included in the minimum).
The bibliography has references to it provided in the text.
I have used at least point 12 type size in a standard font, such as Arial, Times New Roman, or Calibri, at least 1.5 line spacing and there are page numbers.
I have provided a word count
STUDENT FEEDBACK REQUEST BASED ON PREVIOUS FEEDBACK (Please identify personal targets for improvement.)
TUTOR TO COMPLETE Markers Initials: Dr James Lorenz Date:
MARK Please note: This mark is indicative and may be subject to moderation and or internal examining and may be adjusted up or down.
Strengths of the work and general comments:
You are invited to book a tutorial with the marker to discuss this feedback. Email the marker to request a meeting.
Areas that can be improved on for future work:
You will be invited to discuss this section with your Academic Tutor Please also refer to the Assessment Grid below
Level 4 PASS GRADESFAIL GRADES
(High 1st: 100-85) (1st class: 84 - 70) (2:1: 69 - 60) (2:2: 59 - 50) (3rd class: 49 - 40) (Fail: 39 - 20) (Serious fail: 19 - 0)
Knowledge & UnderstandingA sustained and sophisticated breadth/depth of knowledge and understanding of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices. Sophisticated knowledge and understanding of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices. Detailed knowledge and understanding of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices. Knowledge and understanding of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices, though with some limitations in breadth/ depth. Basic knowledge and understanding of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices, but limited in scope and/or accuracy. Insufficient knowledge and understanding of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices. Little or no evidence of knowledge and understanding of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices.
Analysis and Evaluation An exceptional level of identification and explanation of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices and evaluation of relevant materials. Sophisticated and highly reasoned arguments are expressed with exemplary clarity and precision. A near faultless structure in support of the argument, relevant to the task/format. Sustained, coherent and insightful identification and explanation of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices and evaluation of relevant materials. Construction of a clearly reasoned, sophisticated and articulate argument. Highly effective structure in support of the argument, relevant to the task/format. Consistent, accurate identification and explanation of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices and evaluation of relevant materials. Construction of a clear and well-reasoned argument, with a good attempt at complexity/ sophistication. Effective structure in support of the argument, relevant to the task/format. Identifies and explains key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices, though parts of the work may be overly descriptive. A consistent attempt to present an argument, though may be lacking in complexity. There is an attempt at a logical structure, though this may be overly simplistic. Basic ability to identify and explain key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices, but limited in depth, with the work being overly descriptive. Some attempt to present an argument but limited in clarity, complexity, relevance and/or articulation. A basic structure is present, but not provide a strong analytical frame. Little identification and explanation of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices. Work is mostly descriptive, showing limited engagement with the material. Poor or no construction of argument. Lacking a coherent structure. Little or no evidence of relevant identification and explanation of key sources, concepts, debates, and/or religious beliefs, institutions, and practices, with no argument developed. No logical progression or sequencing of the work.
Research and Inquiry Research beyond normal expectations for the work, demonstrated by sophisticated engagement with a vast breadth/depth of important and potentially challenging/ advanced literature.
A significant breadth/depth of research demonstrated through a detailed and sophisticated engagement with highly relevant literature significantly beyond taught (e.g. lecture/seminar) material. Strong research skills, demonstrated through a consistent engagement with a range of relevant literature beyond taught (e.g. lecture/seminar) material. Clear evidence of research skills, demonstrated through the accessing of, and engaging with relevant literature consistent with taught content.
Adequate evidence of research skills, though breadth/depth of reading (primary and secondary sources) may be limited in range/awareness and/or appropriateness. Possible replication of taught (e.g. lecture/seminar) material. Inadequate evidence of research skills, demonstrated through a severely limited range of reading and engagement with accessed literature. Little or no evidence of research skills, demonstrated through a clear lack of reading and engagement with literature in the production of the work.
Written Communication Professional, sophisticated communication, with exceptional clarity and/or reader engagement, and a flawless command of the English language. An exceptional ability to paraphrase, link ideas and write in own distinct voice. Professional communication that holds the attention of its reader throughout. Excellent clarity and fluency, with a broad vocabulary and a pertinent use of subject terminology. Excellent grasp of spelling, punctuation grammar and paragraphing. Excellent paraphrasing and linking of key ideas from the literature. Fluent and coherent communication that engages the reader. Clear and effective use of a subject vocabulary relevant terminology. A high level of competency with spelling, punctuation, grammar, and paragraphing. Strong paraphrasing and linking skills. Mostly fluent and coherent communication, with idiomatic use of vocabulary and relevant terminology. Overall, good grasp of syntax, though there may be some errors or inconsistencies. Paraphrase may contain inaccuracies or weak links; work may lack a distinct voice. Adequate clarity of academic expression and communication; may be difficult to follow at times due to poor expression/grammar. Occasional inappropriate use of vocabulary and incoherent sentence structure. Possible over-use of quotations and/or disjointed paraphrasing. Limited clarity and/or structure in communication, and/or inadequate demonstration of language conventions. Highly limited clarity and/or structure in communication. Inadequate demonstration of language conventions. Highly limited/no engagement with relevant terminology.
Presentation and ReferencingFaultless referencing and presentation. Quotations are highly pertinent in use, near flawless integration, delivering maximum impact. Technically excellent and proficient referencing and presentation. Judicious use of direct quotations, clearly integrated and distinguishable from indirect citations. Consistently proficient referencing and presentation. Direct quotations integrated and distinguishable from indirect citations. Generally proficient and consistent referencing and presentation. Quotations mostly pertinent and integrated. Basic proficiency with referencing/academic conventions and presentation, although errors may be present. Poor referencing and presentation; little understanding of conventions. Requires significant development of proficiency in referencing and presentation.
Level 4 Programme Learning Outcomes (Single and Joint Honours Programmes in Religion)
Upon successful completion of level 4 students will be able to:
4.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of key figures, sources or texts relevant to the study of religion/theology/philosophy/ethics
4.2 Identify and explain central themes, concepts and debates relevant to religion/theology/philosophy/ethics using primary and secondary sources.
4.3 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of religious beliefs, institutions and practices, showing awareness of their wider social and cultural contexts.
4.4 Present arguments to support their own views, whilst representing the beliefs and arguments of others fairly and accurately, demonstrating sensitivity and respect.
4.5 Communicate with clarity and precision of expression, whilst adhering to academic conventions and demonstrating a basic proficiency in essential study skills relevant to the subject area.
Level 4
Module PLO 4.1 PLO 4.2 PLO 4.3 PLO 4.4 PLO 4.5
Foundations of Theology X X X X X
Global Islam X X X X
Philosophy and Religion X X X X
Studying Religion X X X
Values and Virtues X X X X
World Christianity X X X X
Critical Analysis of a Seminar Reading Anselms ProslogiumIn this analysis, I examine Anselms work in the Proslogium. My aim is to provide an explanation and critical response to Anselms points. Anselm, an 11th century monk, wrote the Proslogium as a profound prayer to God, meditating upon Gods attributes. It is here that Anselm first formulates his famous ontological argument. Anselms aim is to validate theism, as specified in the Proslogium, faith seeking understanding.
In chapter two, Anselms first premise sets out the basis of the ontological argument and invites us to consider Gods nature, suggesting that God is the most perfect being imaginable, any being that goes above this in our minds would go above the creator, which Anselms sees as absurd.
He uses the analogy of a painter to define how people should formulate their understanding of God from being simply within their intellect to becoming existent, however I argue that this analogy is unsuitable, as a painter creates a painting and as humans, we cannot create God from our minds. This is a noticeable weakness in Anselms argument, Anselm wishes us to conceive something which only exists intellectually. This is shared by the famous contemporary of Anselm, the monk Gaunilo of Marmoutiers ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"siPmfiWC","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Davies, 2004)","plainCitation":"(Davies, 2004)","dontUpdate":true,"noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":56,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/sYwfrU2Z/items/CS6JUVXN"],"itemData":{"id":56,"type":"book","edition":"3rd edition","event-place":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","publisher-place":"Oxford","title":"An Introduction to The Philosophy of Religion","author":[{"family":"Davies","given":"B"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2004"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Davies, 2004, p.103), who uses the analogy of a perfect island to convey that an idea in our mind simply fails to become reality. However, Anselm specifies: whatever else there is, except you alone, can be conceived not to exist, destroying Gaunilos perfect island counterargument, by inferring God as contingent, necessary and atemporal, unlike an island.
Consequently, Anselm infers that if we can imagine this greatest being intellectually, then it must be true in reality, and existence in reality is better than existence simply in our understanding. Anselm therefore conveys that God exists in definition alone through deductive reasoning. This is the second premise of the ontological argument and has criticisms, such as those of Hume and Kant who disagree with the use of existence as a predicate ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"g21QQWN3","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Shaffer, 1962)","plainCitation":"(Shaffer, 1962)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":33,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/sYwfrU2Z/items/PPMB5NCG"],"itemData":{"id":33,"type":"article-journal","container-title":"Mind","ISSN":"0026-4423","issue":"283","note":"publisher: [Oxford University Press, Mind Association]","page":"307-325","source":"JSTOR","title":"Existence, Predication, and the Ontological Argument","volume":"71","author":[{"family":"Shaffer","given":"Jerome"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1962"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Shaffer, 1962, p.307). In addition, Aquinas also has reservations accepting Anselms second premise as he believes we fail to truly know Gods essence as human beings, known by God himself alone ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"KWAoayyu","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Ryan, 2014)","plainCitation":"(Ryan, 2014)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":107,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/sYwfrU2Z/items/IKPQFUT7"],"itemData":{"id":107,"type":"article-journal","abstract":"This paper seeks to demonstrate the enduring importance of the teachings and methodologies of Thomas Aquinas to the theological project. The paper has three parts. The first part emphasises the importance of Aquinas clarity in dealing with the question of God, emphasising how God is radically transcendent and yet sovereignly present to, and active in, creation. The second part addresses Thomas Aquinas thought on human relatedness to God, especially in the area of prayer. The third part focuses on Aquinas account of human flourishing as virtuous living. A no less goal of this paper is to demonstrate that, even if Aquinas had not said anything about a particular issue as perhaps the question we seek to address is of of our time, much is to be gleaned from his precise and clear, analytical and argumentative approach to all questions.","container-title":"New Blackfriars","DOI":"10.1111/nbfr.12070","ISSN":"1741-2005","issue":"1056","language":"en","note":"_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/nbfr.12070","page":"160-176","source":"Wiley Online Library","title":"Why Do We Still Need Aquinas?","volume":"95","author":[{"family":"Ryan","given":"Finche"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2014"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Ryan, 2014, p.163), favouring instead the use of analogy and apophatic theology ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"fHZwtDcZ","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Rocca, 2004)","plainCitation":"(Rocca, 2004)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":57,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/sYwfrU2Z/items/IETFVBG4"],"itemData":{"id":57,"type":"book","abstract":"Aimed at specialists in Aquinas and others interested in the God-talk dialogue this book finds that Aquinas' analogy is more a matter of judgement and truth than of concept and meaning; despite his own presuppositions, Aquinas bases his theological analogy more on the insights of faith than reason.","ISBN":"978-0-8132-1367-5","language":"en","number-of-pages":"440","publisher":"CUA Press","source":"Google Books","title":"Speaking the Incomprehensible God: Thomas Aquinas on the Interplay of Positive and Negative Theology","title-short":"Speaking the Incomprehensible God","author":[{"family":"Rocca","given":"Gregory P."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2004"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Rocca, 2004, p.173-174). One further critique I make here is that something imagined is potentially radically different from existence in reality. Is imagination really an authentic guide to logical possibility?
Furthermore, I argue that Anselms idea of perfection in the greatness of God potentially differs according to human individual conceivability of Gods perfection or attributes. This contradicts Aquinas ideas of God being unchangeable and simple ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"us67RRpK","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(uc0u8216{}Handout: Goduc0u8217{}s attributesuc0u8217{}, 2012)","plainCitation":"(Handout: Gods attributes, 2012)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":45,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/sYwfrU2Z/items/5T33494S"],"itemData":{"id":45,"type":"post-weblog","abstract":"The Nature of God Source:ovrlnd.com/Apologetics Natural Theology deals with what can be known about the existence and nature of God by...","container-title":"Philosophical Investigations","language":"en-GB","title":"Handout: God's attributes","title-short":"Handout","URL":"https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/natureofgod/","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2022",10,19]]},"issued":{"date-parts":[["2012",10,17]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Handout: Gods attributes, 2012).
Another noteworthy criticism of Anselms argument is that it fails to convey direction as to which belief the theist should adopt, despite theism being deduced from his argument.
Conversely, Anselms argument has strength in its clarity and logicality. It deductively concludes apriori evidence for theism in a logical manner, albeit simply from the mind and thus definition alone, leaving this evidence arguable.
In conclusion, I find Anselms argument implausible due to the lack of empirical evidence the argument provides. The argument places extensive emphasis on simply human imagination which fails to deliver evidence for theism. Additionally, I reflect upon the aforementioned disagreements and limitations held by other philosophers of religion in this conclusion.
550 words
Bibliography:
ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Davies, B. (2004) An Introduction to The Philosophy of Religion. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Handout: Gods attributes (2012) Philosophical Investigations, 17 October. Available at: https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/natureofgod/ (Accessed: 19 October 2022).
Rocca, G.P. (2004) Speaking the Incomprehensible God: Thomas Aquinas on the Interplay of Positive and Negative Theology. Catholic University of America Press.
Ryan, F. (2014) Why Do We Still Need Aquinas?, New Blackfriars, 95(1056), pp. 160176. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/nbfr.12070.
Shaffer, J. (1962) Existence, Predication, and the Ontological Argument, Mind, 71(283), pp. 307325.
