The Modal Unity of Anselm’s Proslogion

Faith and Philosophy 13 (1):50-67 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Anselm claimed that his Proslogion was a “single argument” sufficient to prove “that God truly exists,” that God is “the supreme good requiring nothing else,” as well as to prove “whatever we believe regarding the divine Being.” In this paper we show how Anselm’s argument in the Proslogion and in his Reply to Gaunilo can be reconstructed as a single argument. A logically elegant result is that the various stages of Anselm’s argument are validated by standard axioms from contemporary modal logic.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,990

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

Anselm's neglected argument.Brian Leftow - 2002 - Philosophy 77 (3):331-347.
The Ontological Argument.Stephen Makin - 1988 - Philosophy 63 (243):83 - 91.
Proslogion: Including Gaunilo Objections and Anselm's Replies.Matthew D. Walz - 2013 - South Bend, IN, USA: St. Augustine's Press. Edited by Matthew D. Walz, Gaunilo & Anselm.
Proslogion II and III. [REVIEW]E. M. W. - 1973 - Review of Metaphysics 27 (1):135-136.
Mechanized analysis of Anselm’s modal ontological argument.John Rushby - 2020 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 89 (2):135-152.
Anselm's "Proslogion" Argument: A Metaphysics of Creation.Floyd Edwin Wike - 1980 - Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University
The non-Christian influence on Anselm’s Proslogion argument.Nancy Kendrick - 2011 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (2):73-89.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
44 (#352,613)

6 months
14 (#252,725)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gary Mar
State University of New York, Stony Brook

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

On the logic of the ontological argument.Paul E. Oppenheimer & Edward N. Zalta - 1991 - Philosophical Perspectives 5:509-529.

Add more references