The ontomystical argument revisited
I argue that Alexander Pruss’s ontomystical arguments should not be endorsed without further argumentative support of their premises. My specific targets are his claims that (i) Śamkara’s principle is true and (ii) the high mystics had phenomenal experiences of radical dependence and as of a maximal...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Springer Nature B. V
2010
|
| In: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2010, Volume: 67, Issue: 2, Pages: 95-105 |
| Further subjects: | B
Ontological Argument
B Śamkara’s principle B Ontomystical argument B Phenomenal experiences |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Electronic
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000naa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1821424980 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20221110052752.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 221110s2010 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11153-009-9219-8 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1821424980 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1821424980 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 0 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Byerly, T. Ryan |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The ontomystical argument revisited |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2010 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a I argue that Alexander Pruss’s ontomystical arguments should not be endorsed without further argumentative support of their premises. My specific targets are his claims that (i) Śamkara’s principle is true and (ii) the high mystics had phenomenal experiences of radical dependence and as of a maximally great being. Against (i), I urge a host of counterexamples. The only ways I can see for Pruss to respond to these counterexamples end up falsifying (ii). The key problem which leads to this conclusion is that Pruss needs a criterion for distinguishing phenomenal experiences from non-phenomenal experiences according to which the experiences of the high mystics were phenomenal experiences while the experiences of those persons I discuss in my counterexamples to Śamkara’s principle are not. There appears to be no such criterion. I suggest that the future of the ontomystical arguments lies in developing them as inductive rather than deductive arguments. | ||
| 601 | |a Argumentation | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Ontological Argument | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ontomystical argument | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Phenomenal experiences | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Śamkara’s principle | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t International journal for philosophy of religion |d Dordrecht : Springer Nature B.V, 1970 |g 67(2010), 2, Seite 95-105 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)320442098 |w (DE-600)2005049-5 |w (DE-576)103746927 |x 1572-8684 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:67 |g year:2010 |g number:2 |g pages:95-105 |
| 776 | |i Erscheint auch als |n elektronische Ausgabe |w (DE-627)1646895940 |k Electronic | ||
| 856 | |3 Volltext |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/25652864 |x JSTOR | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-009-9219-8 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4208228997 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1821424980 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20221110052752 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 221110||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-09-28#233A8DD29A53D4E6DDCD10C90E2DA1D400E9E61A | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 866 |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/25652864 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||
| REL | |a 1 | ||
| SUB | |a REL | ||