Abstract

In this paper, I suggest a new interpretation of the argument given in Proslogium 3 which can be derived from the passage. My suggestion is that the argument in Proslogium 3 can be read as a sub argument for the premise (3) of the ontological argument given in Proslogium 2. This premise says God can be conceived to exist in reality. But the fool might refuse to accept this premise by claiming that perhaps God is a logically impossible object, and thus it cannot be conceived to exist in reality. My new interpretation is that the argument in Proslogium 3 is to support premise (3) of the ontological argument by showing that God can be conceived to exist in reality, that it is not a logically impossible object. After suggesting a new interpretation of the argument, I defend it against two possible objections.