An Analysis of Some of J. J. C. Smart's Objections to the ‘Proofs’

I submit as a good rule of thumb (but one which is sometimes wrong) that if a discussion of any major philosophical position or proposition ends with the conclusion that that position or proposition is ‘absurd’ or ‘meaningless’ then a mistake has been made in the discussion. The mistake often turns...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Religious studies 1969-04, Vol.4 (2), p.245-251
Main Author: Dilley, Frank B.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Concept of being
Evolutionary theories
Existence
Necessary being
Ontological arguments
Ontological essence
Philosophical analysis
Teleology
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 251
container_issue 2
container_start_page 245
container_title Religious studies
container_volume 4
creator Dilley, Frank B.
description I submit as a good rule of thumb (but one which is sometimes wrong) that if a discussion of any major philosophical position or proposition ends with the conclusion that that position or proposition is ‘absurd’ or ‘meaningless’ then a mistake has been made in the discussion. The mistake often turns out to be the accuser's failure to appreciate precisely what the position being attacked really is.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0034412500003632
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1297386635</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0034412500003632</cupid><jstor_id>20004720</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>20004720</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c244t-d657f13d703d1e0e71f67a9fc15f8d867c43025c7b5a19ec95eaf07f719d449d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMFKAzEQhoMoWKsP4EFY8OBpa2aTTbrHUm21VFqtorew3U10a9vUJAV762Po6_VJzLKlCOIwMIfv_4d_BqFTwA3AwC9HGBNKIYqxL8JItIdqQFkSJhhe9lGtxGHJD9GRtROMgQClNdRpzYPWPJ2ubGEDrYKRnsly9hpltxvBaJYad2GDwXgiM1fouQ2cDtybDDbrr6HRWtnN-vsYHah0auXJdtbRU-f6sX0T9gfd23arH2YRpS7MWcwVkJxjkoPEkoNiPE1UBrFq5k3GM0pwFGd8HKeQyCyJZaowVxySnNIkJ3V0Xu1dGP2xlNaJiV4an98KiBJOmoyR2KugUmVGW2ukEgtT-DtWArAo3yX-vMt7zirPxDptdobIc8oj7HlY8cI6-bnjqXkXjBMeC9a9Fw_8mfSuhkzceT3ZZkhnY1Pkr_JX1H9T_AAMi4Lq</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1297386635</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An Analysis of Some of J. J. C. Smart's Objections to the ‘Proofs’</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Cambridge University Press:JISC Collections:Full Collection Digital Archives (STM and HSS) (218 titles)</source><creator>Dilley, Frank B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dilley, Frank B.</creatorcontrib><description>I submit as a good rule of thumb (but one which is sometimes wrong) that if a discussion of any major philosophical position or proposition ends with the conclusion that that position or proposition is ‘absurd’ or ‘meaningless’ then a mistake has been made in the discussion. The mistake often turns out to be the accuser's failure to appreciate precisely what the position being attacked really is.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0034-4125</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-901X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0034412500003632</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Concept of being ; Evolutionary theories ; Existence ; Necessary being ; Ontological arguments ; Ontological essence ; Philosophical analysis ; Teleology</subject><ispartof>Religious studies, 1969-04, Vol.4 (2), p.245-251</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20004720$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0034412500003632/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,55689,58238,58471</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dilley, Frank B.</creatorcontrib><title>An Analysis of Some of J. J. C. Smart's Objections to the ‘Proofs’</title><title>Religious studies</title><addtitle>Rel. Stud</addtitle><description>I submit as a good rule of thumb (but one which is sometimes wrong) that if a discussion of any major philosophical position or proposition ends with the conclusion that that position or proposition is ‘absurd’ or ‘meaningless’ then a mistake has been made in the discussion. The mistake often turns out to be the accuser's failure to appreciate precisely what the position being attacked really is.</description><subject>Concept of being</subject><subject>Evolutionary theories</subject><subject>Existence</subject><subject>Necessary being</subject><subject>Ontological arguments</subject><subject>Ontological essence</subject><subject>Philosophical analysis</subject><subject>Teleology</subject><issn>0034-4125</issn><issn>1469-901X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1969</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMFKAzEQhoMoWKsP4EFY8OBpa2aTTbrHUm21VFqtorew3U10a9vUJAV762Po6_VJzLKlCOIwMIfv_4d_BqFTwA3AwC9HGBNKIYqxL8JItIdqQFkSJhhe9lGtxGHJD9GRtROMgQClNdRpzYPWPJ2ubGEDrYKRnsly9hpltxvBaJYad2GDwXgiM1fouQ2cDtybDDbrr6HRWtnN-vsYHah0auXJdtbRU-f6sX0T9gfd23arH2YRpS7MWcwVkJxjkoPEkoNiPE1UBrFq5k3GM0pwFGd8HKeQyCyJZaowVxySnNIkJ3V0Xu1dGP2xlNaJiV4an98KiBJOmoyR2KugUmVGW2ukEgtT-DtWArAo3yX-vMt7zirPxDptdobIc8oj7HlY8cI6-bnjqXkXjBMeC9a9Fw_8mfSuhkzceT3ZZkhnY1Pkr_JX1H9T_AAMi4Lq</recordid><startdate>19690401</startdate><enddate>19690401</enddate><creator>Dilley, Frank B.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>FUVTR</scope><scope>HOKLE</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19690401</creationdate><title>An Analysis of Some of J. J. C. Smart's Objections to the ‘Proofs’</title><author>Dilley, Frank B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c244t-d657f13d703d1e0e71f67a9fc15f8d867c43025c7b5a19ec95eaf07f719d449d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1969</creationdate><topic>Concept of being</topic><topic>Evolutionary theories</topic><topic>Existence</topic><topic>Necessary being</topic><topic>Ontological arguments</topic><topic>Ontological essence</topic><topic>Philosophical analysis</topic><topic>Teleology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dilley, Frank B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 06</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 22</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><jtitle>Religious studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dilley, Frank B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An Analysis of Some of J. J. C. Smart's Objections to the ‘Proofs’</atitle><jtitle>Religious studies</jtitle><addtitle>Rel. Stud</addtitle><date>1969-04-01</date><risdate>1969</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>245</spage><epage>251</epage><pages>245-251</pages><issn>0034-4125</issn><eissn>1469-901X</eissn><abstract>I submit as a good rule of thumb (but one which is sometimes wrong) that if a discussion of any major philosophical position or proposition ends with the conclusion that that position or proposition is ‘absurd’ or ‘meaningless’ then a mistake has been made in the discussion. The mistake often turns out to be the accuser's failure to appreciate precisely what the position being attacked really is.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0034412500003632</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0034-4125
ispartof Religious studies, 1969-04, Vol.4 (2), p.245-251
issn 0034-4125
1469-901X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1297386635
source JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Cambridge University Press:JISC Collections:Full Collection Digital Archives (STM and HSS) (218 titles)
subjects Concept of being
Evolutionary theories
Existence
Necessary being
Ontological arguments
Ontological essence
Philosophical analysis
Teleology
title An Analysis of Some of J. J. C. Smart's Objections to the ‘Proofs’
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T17%3A53%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20Analysis%20of%20Some%20of%20J.%20J.%20C.%20Smart's%20Objections%20to%20the%20%E2%80%98Proofs%E2%80%99&rft.jtitle=Religious%20studies&rft.au=Dilley,%20Frank%20B.&rft.date=1969-04-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=245&rft.epage=251&rft.pages=245-251&rft.issn=0034-4125&rft.eissn=1469-901X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0034412500003632&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E20004720%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c244t-d657f13d703d1e0e71f67a9fc15f8d867c43025c7b5a19ec95eaf07f719d449d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1297386635&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0034412500003632&rft_jstor_id=20004720&rfr_iscdi=true