St. Anselm’s Argument

In Peter Wong, Sherah Bloor, Patrick Hutchings & Purushottama Bilimoria (eds.), Considering Religions, Rights and Bioethics: For Max Charlesworth. Springer Verlag. pp. 105-114 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

While not taking St. Anselm’s ontological argument in the Proslogion to be valid, this paper shows that the dismissal of the thesis by both St. Thomas Aquinas and Kant does less than justice to St. Anselm’s text. In Chapter II of the Proslogion Anselm defines God as ‘something than which nothing greater can be thought’, claiming that this notion ‘exists in the mind’. The question is does its subject, God, exist ‘in re’. Can one proceed from the mental existence to real existence given that to exist in re is greater than to exist notionally? This paper sets out several of Anselm’s premises from which he concludes that the notional existence of God defined by Anselm entails God’s actual existence, Aquinas dismissed Anselm’s arguments – possibly not having Anselm’s full text at hand. Anselm maintains that if ‘something than which nothing greater can be thought’ can be conceived, then to deny its existence in re constitutes a self-contradiction. The present paper examines in detail the elements of which Anselm’s elegant arguments are composed: q.v. Reference is made to Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo, and to Anselm’s ontology set out in Monologion. Much, for the modern reader, turns on the topical logic of ‘perfection’ and of ‘greatness’. Again: much turns on the Kantian question ‘Is existence a predicate?’ And on the question: what kinds of things can be the subject of predicates? The comparison which Anselm is making between real and conceptual existence is not like any other comparison. This may be the flaw in his arguments.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,709

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Gaunilo's Cogito Argument.Miroslav Imbrisevic - 2007 - St. Anselm Journal:1-7.
The Ontological Argument of St. Anselm.S. A. Grave - 1952 - Philosophy 27 (100):30-38.
Anselm and the ontological argument.Graham Oppy - 2011 - In Jeff Jordan (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: The Key Thinkers. London: Continuum. pp. 22-43.
Anselm and Russell.Maciej Nowicki - 2006 - Logic and Logical Philosophy 15 (4):355-368.
Anselm's neglected argument.Brian Leftow - 2002 - Philosophy 77 (3):331-347.
Anselm's other argument.A. D. Smith - 2014 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
The Ontological Argument.Stephen Makin - 1988 - Philosophy 63 (243):83 - 91.
Proslogion II and III. [REVIEW]E. M. W. - 1973 - Review of Metaphysics 27 (1):135-136.
Gaunilo referiert Anselm. Aus dem Tagesgeschäft des Rekonstrukteurs.Geo Siegwart - 2013 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 27 (1):1-29.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument and Aristotle’s Elegktikōs Apodeixai.Michael Oliver Wiitala - 2012 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 86:129-140.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-06-17

Downloads
12 (#1,081,406)

6 months
7 (#421,763)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Matthew Charlesworth
University of Toronto, St. George Campus

Citations of this work

The ontological argument.Graham Oppy - 2008 - In Paul Copan & Chad V. Meister (eds.), Philosophy of religion: classic and contemporary issues. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Arguments for the existence of God.Graham Oppy - 2012 - Oxford Bibliographies Online.
Idealist Origins: 1920s and Before.Martin Davies & Stein Helgeby - 2014 - In Graham Oppy & Nick Trakakis (eds.), History of Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. pp. 15-54.
Anselm and the ontological argument.Graham Oppy - 2011 - In Jeff Jordan (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: The Key Thinkers. London: Continuum. pp. 22-43.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references