Untitled Essay Research Paper Anselm

Untitled Essay, Research Paper

Anselm’s Ontological Argument and the Philosophers Saint Anselm of Aosta, Bec, and Canterbury, perhaps during a moment of

enlightenment or

starvation-induced hallucination, succeeded in formulating an argument for God’s existence

which has

been debated for almost a thousand years. It shows no sign of going away soon. It is an

argument

based solely on reason, distinguishing it from other arguments for the existence of God

such as

cosmological or teleological arguments. These latter arguments respectively depend on the

world’s

causes or design, and thus may weaken as new scientific advances are made (such as

Darwin’s

theory of evolution). We can be sure that no such fate will happen to Anselm’s Ontological

Argument (the name, by the way, coined by Kant).

In form, Anselm’s arguments are much like the arguments we see in

philosophy today. In

Cur Deus Homo we read Anselm’s conversation with a skeptic. This sort of

question-and-answer

form of argumentation (dialectic) is very much like the writings of Plato. The skeptic,

Boso,

question’s Anselm’s faith with an array of questions non-believers still ask today. Anselm

answers in

a step-by-step manner, asking for confirmation along the way, until he arrives at a

conclusion with

which Boso is forced to agree. This is just like Socrates’ procedure with, say, Crito.

Later philosophers have both accepted and denied the validity of

Anselm’s famous

ontological argument for the existence of God, presented in both the Proslogium and

Monologium.

Anselm did not first approach the argument with an open mind, then examine its components

with a

critical eye to see which side was best. Anselm had made up his mind about the issue long

before he

began to use dialectic to attempt to dissect it. "Indeed, the extreme ardor which

impels him to search

everywhere for arguments favorable to the dogma, is a confession his part that the dogma

needs

support, that it is debatable, that it lacks self-evidence, the criterion of truth."

(Weber, V)

In chapters 2-4 of his Proslogium, Anselm summarizes the argument. A

fool is one who

denies the existence of God. But even that fool understands the definition of God, "a

being than

which nothing greater can be conceived." But the fool says that this definition

exists only in his mind,

and not in reality. But, Anselm observes, a being which exists in both reality and in the

understanding

would be greater than one that merely exists only in the understanding. So the definition

of God, one

that points to "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived", points

toward a being which

exists both in reality and in the understanding. It would be impossible to hold the

conception of God

in this manner, and yet deny that He exists in reality.

The argument was criticized by one of Anselm’s contemporaries, a monk

named Gaunilo,

who said, that by Anselm’s reasoning, one could imagine a certain island, more perfect

than any other

island. If this island can exist in the mind, then according to Anselm, it would

necessarily exist in

reality, for a ‘perfect’ island would have this quality. But this is obviously false; we

cannot make

things exist merely by imagining them.

Anselm replied, upholding his argument (in many, many words) by saying

that they are

comparing apples and oranges. An island is something that can be thought of not to exist,

whereas

the non-existence of "that than which a greater cannot be conceived is

inconceivable." (Reply, ch..

3) Only for God is it inconceivable not to exist; mere islands or other things do not fit

this quality.

Copleston sums it up succinctly (for Anselm doesn’t): "it would be absurd to speak of

a merely

possible necessary being (it is a contradiction in terms), whereas there is no

contradiction in speaking

of merely possible beautiful islands.

St. Thomas Aquinas rejects the argument, saying that the human mind

cannot possibly

conceive of the idea of God by reason alone (a-priori), as Anselm might. The argument does

not

make sense by itself, and must first provide an idea of the existence of God with an

analysis of God’s

effects (a-posteriori), to which Thomas turns. I think there is evidence in Anselm’s

writings that he

would disagree, saying that the idea of God is an innate one given to us by God, and needs

no other

revelation to bring it about. "Hence, this being, through its greater likeness, assists the

investigating mind in the approach

to supreme Truth; and through its more excellent created essence, teaches the more

correctly what

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать