Anselm’s Equivocation

Philo 7 (1):47-56 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Although most agree that St. Anselm’s ontological argument is problematic, there is no consensus as to what, exactly, is the flaw in the argument. In this essay, I propose what I take to be a novel criticism of the argument. Specifically, I claim that Anselm is guilty of an equivocation in his use of the word “God,” using it sometimes to refer to a being and sometimes to refer to a concept. Any attempt to remove this equivocation, I show, is doomed to failure; it is impossible to render the argument (or some version thereof) sound.

Similar books and articles

In Defense of Anselm.Mark Owen Webb - 2005 - Philo 8 (1):55-58.
In Defense of Anselm.Mark Owen Webb - 2005 - Philo 8 (1):55-58.
Anselm and Russell.Maciej Nowicki - 2006 - Logic and Logical Philosophy 15 (4):355-368.
Does Anselm beg the question?Keith Burgess-Jackson - 2014 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 76 (1):5-18.
Avoiding or changing the past.G. C. Goddu - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):11-17.
A Careful Reading of St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument.Clint I. Barrett - 2011 - Philosophy and Theology 23 (2):217-230.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-01-09

Downloads
350 (#60,511)

6 months
111 (#46,765)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

An Ontological Argument for the Devil.Marjorie Haight - 1970 - The Monist 54 (2):218-220.
The ontological argument.Bruce Russell - 1985 - Sophia 24 (1):38-47.

Add more references