In the spirit of "healthy collegiality," I am one that views the "Ontological Argument" (thank you for the definitional reference link, btw) as I do the word-play, "Can God fashion a rock too heavy for Him to lift?". Both remind me of the rich logic posed by Charles Dodson, a high-church Anglican in the early 19th century, when he penned the classic . . . Jabberwocky.
Seriously, though, this was a thought provoking essay to read. It would prompt numerous camp-fire discussions with opposing perspectives. Nicely done.
Oh, and to your query regarding an essay on interest -- the incentive given to one in exchange for the time value of his money -- yes, please opine!
A serious minded thinker and sharp logician like Anselm certainly would not have engaged in word play, or at least not intentionally. A more damaging reply, I think, is the observation of both its tacit assumption that abstract thought must inherently correspond to concrete reality, which we know from experience can be false, and the assumption of a definition of "greatness" which can obviously be controverted. However, reading Anselm on the Ontological Argument certainly isn't as fun as reading Lewis Carroll. Thank you also for your feedback on the topic of interest.
I would definitely like to see an article on the ethics of interest.
In the spirit of "healthy collegiality," I am one that views the "Ontological Argument" (thank you for the definitional reference link, btw) as I do the word-play, "Can God fashion a rock too heavy for Him to lift?". Both remind me of the rich logic posed by Charles Dodson, a high-church Anglican in the early 19th century, when he penned the classic . . . Jabberwocky.
Seriously, though, this was a thought provoking essay to read. It would prompt numerous camp-fire discussions with opposing perspectives. Nicely done.
Oh, and to your query regarding an essay on interest -- the incentive given to one in exchange for the time value of his money -- yes, please opine!
A serious minded thinker and sharp logician like Anselm certainly would not have engaged in word play, or at least not intentionally. A more damaging reply, I think, is the observation of both its tacit assumption that abstract thought must inherently correspond to concrete reality, which we know from experience can be false, and the assumption of a definition of "greatness" which can obviously be controverted. However, reading Anselm on the Ontological Argument certainly isn't as fun as reading Lewis Carroll. Thank you also for your feedback on the topic of interest.