8/8/2019 Anselm.oh

1/3

ANSELM: THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

[1] Anselm (10331109): life and times. The early Middle Ages. Anselms project of faithseeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum).

[2] One branch of philosophy is metaphysics, which, among other things, deals with what exists(the sub-branch known as ontology). Many philosophers have thought that the world includesbeings of a very special sort, namely divine beings, that are not as limited as human beings. Afterthe monotheistic revolution in religion, this became the question of whether it is possible toprove that there is a God (a divine being worthy of worship). Most proofs for the existence ofGod start from some evident fact of experience: a direct mystical encounter with God, or theobservations that the world shows signs of (intelligent) design, or something of the sort. Yetthere are a few attempts to show that God exists from first principles alone. Anselm offered oneof the most famous such arguments, which has its own namethe Ontological Argument.

[3]Anselms Ontological Argument tries to show that the existence of God follows from thevery notion of what God is, or, to put it another way, Gods existence follows from very thin

theistic assumptions that (almost) everyone shares. It is nota mere matter of definition, though;according to Anselm, Gods existence follows from one of His substantive characteristics.

[4] Here is the entire proof (Proslogion) 2:

Therefore, O Lord, You Who give understanding to faith, give to me that I understandso much as You know to be fit: that You are as we believe, and You are that whichwe believe. And, indeed, we believe You to be something than which nothing greatercan be thought. Or [can it be that] there is not some such nature, then, since TheFool hath said in his heart: There is no God [Psalms 13:1]? But certainly, that same

Foole, when he hears this very thing I say, something than which nothing greater canbe thought, understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understand-ing, even if he were not to understand that to be. It is one matter that a thing is inthe understanding, another to understand a thing to be. For when the painter thinksbeforehand what is going to be done, he has [it] in the understanding but does not yetunderstand to be what he does not yet make. Yet when he has painted, he both has [it]in the understanding and also understands to be what he now makes. Therefore, eventhe Foole is convinced that there is in the understanding even something than whichnothing greater can be thought, since when he hears this he understands, and whateveris understood is in the understanding. And certainly that than which a greater cannotbe thought cannot be in the understanding alone. If indeed it is even in the understand-

ing only, it can be thought to be in reality, which is greater. Thus if that than which agreater cannot be thought is in the understanding alone, the very thing than which agreater cannot be thought is [that] than which a greater can be thought. But certainlythis cannot be. Therefore, without a doubt something than which a greater is not ableto be thought exists (exsistit), both in the understanding and in reality.

Everyone agrees that this is too good to be true. But no one agrees about whats wrong with it.

8/8/2019 Anselm.oh

2/3

[5] Here is one very tentative reconstruction of the argument:

(1) God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.

(2) Whatever is understood is in the understanding.

(3) The Fool says that God does not exist.

(4) The Fool understands (1).

(5) Understanding a proposition is a function of understanding its constituent parts.

(6) The Fool understands something than which nothing greater can be thought (a con-stituent part of (1) above).

(7) Something than which nothing greater can be thought is in the Fools understanding.

(8) Something may exist either (a) in the understanding alone; (b) in the understandingand in reality; (c) in reality alone; (d) in neither the understanding nor in reality.

(9) Something than which nothing greater can be thought exists either (a) in the under-

standing alone, or (b) in the understanding and in reality.(10) Reductio-assumption: Assume (9a) is true, i. e. something than which nothing greater

can be thought exists only in the understanding.

(11) The Fool can imagine Claude, who is just like God but also exists in reality.

(12) Claude is greater than God, since Claude has every feature God does and inaddition exists.

(13) But then the Fool is thinking of something greater than God, that is, some-thing greater than that than which nothing greater can be thought.

(14) Since (13) is impossible, the assumption in (10) has to be rejected: (9a) is false.

(15) Hence (9b) is true.

Therefore: God exists.

Does it work?

[6] Two medival objections. Gaunilon held that the Ontological Argument proves too much:if it were able to show that God exists, it would prove the existence of all sorts of things. Heoffers the Lost Island Objection in his defense of the Fool (translation by Jasper Hopkins):

For example, some people tell of an island existing somewhere in the ocean. Some callit the Lost Island because of the difficultyor rather, the impossibilityof finding whatdoes not exist. They say that it abounds with inestimable plenitude of riches and de-lights of all sorts, even much more so than is reported of the Isles of the Blessed. Havingno owner or inhabitant [it is said] to excel completelybecause of the superabundantgoods for the takingall other lands in which men dwell. Now, should someone tellme these tales I would easily understand what he said, for it is simple enough to com-prehend. But suppose he were then to add, as if it followed logically: You can no moredoubt that this island which is more excellent than all other lands exists somewhere inreality than you can doubt that it is in your understanding. And since for it to exist inreality as well as in the understanding is more excellent [than for it to exist in the under-

8/8/2019 Anselm.oh

3/3

standing alone], then, necessarily, it really exists. For if it did not exist, then any otherreally existing country would be more excellent than it, and thus this island, which hasalready been understood by you to be more excellent [than all other lands], would notbe more excellent [than all others]. Now if someone wanted in this way to prove tome that I must not any longer doubt the existence of this island, then either I would

think he were jesting or else I would not know whom to regard as the more foolish either myself, were I to grant his argument, or him, were he to suppose that he hadproved to any extent the existence of this island. For he would first have to prove thatthis islands excellence is in my understanding only in the way that a thing which reallyand certainly exists is in my understanding and not at all in the way that a thing whichis unreal or doubtful is in my understanding.

Second, Thomas Aquinas objected that, appearances notwithstanding, Anselm is trying to defineGod into existence, by making existence a necessary part of Gods essence. But if I define asquond as an existing round square, that doesnt mean that there is such a thing.