b) philosophical depth and originality; c) clarity and conciseness; d) correctness (i.e., whether the philosophical positions discussed in the paper are accurately represented); and e) style, spelling and grammar.
Topic: On Planting’s view, Anselm’s version of the ontological argument (appropriately updated in contemporary modal terminology) ultimately fails. However, he argues that a different, but related argument succeeds. Explain why he takes Anselm’s argument to fail. Do you agree that it fails? Why or why not? Then explain Planting’s replacement argument. Do you agree that this argument succeeds? Why or why not? Defend your answers.
Reference: Plantings, Alvin. God, Freedom and Evil. William B. Eerdmans, 2002.
Welcome to Legit Writing
