I actually have two problems with the given statements for Anselm's proof of God.
The first is that he doesn't after all establish that greatness converges. He assumes 'greater' is an objective and ordered measurement, neither of which square with the universe with which I'm familiar.
The second is this idea that reality is a subset of understanding. If I'm following this thing right, he is dividing the world into things which are in the understanding, and things which are understood to exist. He simply doesn't include things which are not in the understanding, or things which are understood to not be in the understanding. This is more of a personal problem than a mathematical one but it's still a pretty big hole, to my thinking.
...Actually, this leads to a third hole: even if greatness is a valid metric, who says things which are great converge within the set of the understanding?
In other news, my German midterm scared the shit out of me today. Last question, 40% of the exam: "Write a short analysis of such-and-such a poem." I immediately think: "We were supposed to read that poem!? We haven't read poetry for six weeks! Shit shit shit did I miss something on the syllabus I was sick last week and since then the Prof's been out of town and SHIT I will fail this midterm."
Halfway through the midterm? Printouts of the poem are distributed.
G'ahhhh. why yes I did enjoy my cardiac arrest, tyvm.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
