Proslogion, with the Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm

by Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Williams (Translator)

Thomas Williams' edition offers an Introduction well suited for use in an introductory philosophy course, as well as his own preeminent translation of the text.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Religion, Classics, Nonfiction, School, Christian

64 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1077

About the author

born 1033

People best know Italian-born English theological philosopher and prelate Saint Anselm for his ontological argument for the existence of God.


He entered the Benedictine order at the abbey of Bec at the age of 27 years in 1060 and served as abbot in 1079.

Anselm, a Benedictine monk of monastery at Bec, from 1093 held the office of the Church of archbishop of Canterbury. Called the founder of scholasticism, this major famous originator of the satisfaction theory of atonement influenced the west. He served as archbishop of Canterbury under William II. From 1097, people exiled him to 1100.

As a result of the investiture controversy, the most significant conflict between Church and state in Medieval Europe, Henry I again from 1105 exiled him to 1107.

A bull of Clement XI, pope, proclaimed Anselm a doctor of the Church in 1720 . We celebrate his feast day annually on 21 April.

Reviews

[Traveller · Rating 2 out of 5]

Anselm of Canterbury, a Benedictine monk who was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093, composed a well-known ontological proof for the existence of God, which appears in this work of his. It reads as follows:

"Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.

Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.

For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his understanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.

And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality. "

One of the assumptions one has to make beforehand to be able to follow the 'logic' of Anselm's assertions, appears to be that one has to accept the assertion that being able to conceive of something also somehow causes that thing to exist.

Where Anselm says:
And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone.,
this is of course true in the sense that a thing one can conceive of, does exist in one's mind or imagination, but I don't follow the logic that simply because you can think of something, means that it must exist outside of human imagination, in an objective reality. I can conceive of the idea of a fairy, but does that mean that fairies really exist?

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers illustrated the apparent illogical aspects of some of the aspects of Anselm's argument in his analogy of The Lost Island.

My own version of Marmoutier's parody of Anselm's argument, in order to point out the first fallacy in Anselm's argument would be:
Just because I can conceive of a hairball greater than a hairball I can conceive of... - well, in actual fact, I cannot conceive of a hairball greater than the greatest hairball I can conceive of, so to some extent Anselm's logic fails, but Anselm does see that there is indeed a paradox in this respect, since he does mention the paradox: " But certainly this cannot be." However, his conclusion: There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality. " is not logical.

Although I cannot conceive a hairball greater than the greatest hairball I can conceive of, I can conceive of the possibility of there being a hairball greater than the greatest hairball I can conceive of. One can follow the logic of the argument if you see that Anselm might mean that there could conceivably be something so great, so perfect that you cannot conceive of it. So, if he is saying that "God" is so great, so inconceivable, so unknowable, so immense, so vast, so complex, so perfect, that the human mind cannot conceive of it, then this is indeed an assumption that cannot be faulted, since nobody has managed to disprove such an assumption yet.

Yet, Anselm goes one step further, and concludes that, just because humans can conceive of the actual existence of a being or entity so great, so inconceivable, so unknowable, so immense, so vast, so complex, so perfect, that the human mind cannot conceive of it, that such an entity must by inference then actually exist. If you analyze this end-result of Anselm's contortions, this is actually the conclusion that he arrives at, isn't it?

But Anselm doesn't manage to prove that this conclusion, this assertion, is true, just as I cannot prove that just because I can conceive of the idea that an incredibly complex, incredibly secret incredibly mysterious mermaid, one so mysterious and complex that I cannot even conceive of her, really exists just because I can imagine she could possibly exist.

Looking at the "reality is greater than conception" aspect of Anselm's argument: If a hairball existed in reality, rather than just in my imagination, it would per se be a greater hairball than if it only existed in my imagination, because a hairball that exists in reality as well as in my imagination, rather than just in my imagination alone, would automatically be a greater, more perfect hairball simply due to the fact that it actually exists.

I find it hard to conceive of the veracity of the argument that a hairball that exists in reality is a greater, or a more perfect or a better hairball than the best hairball that I can possibly conceive of.

In fact, I can conceive of a hairball that has multifaceted iridescent colours, that crackles and pops and bounces up and down of it's own volition, and can even whistle "Oh Ye Christian Soldiers" in 3 octaves; - but does that then necessarily mean that if such an exact hairball existed, it would be greater than the one in my imagination?

I suppose it would be possible for such a hairball to exist, but I don't see how it must necessarily exist just because I can conceive of it, and I don't follow that if the exact same hairball existed in reality , that it would be greater than the hairball in my imagination. It might be more useful than if it was only in my imagination, as far as usefulness of hairballs go, but in which sense would it be greater? It wouldn't be more perfect, since it would be the exact same hairball (we are now examining the assumption that a 'real' thing is inherently and per se "greater than" the exact same imagined thing).

It might be 'greater' in the sense that because I can see it and touch it, it gives me greater sensory pleasure. If the imagined thing was a banana, I could eat it, so the assumption holds true for bananas. But does it hold true for hairballs? Or for a piece of dandruff?

Would it hold true for "God"? Inasmuch as the quality of a god that is greater than the one that can be imagined is concerned, it would certainly be true, and here Anselm uses a little trick, because if something that is greater than we can imagine exists, then of course that thing would be greater than the one we imagined, because we imagined it would be greater but it would not be greater by virtue of the fact that it exists, but by virtue of the fact that it must be - according to the argument - already a greater one than what we can conceivably imagine of.

Anselm makes a tiny jump there - he doesn't prove that just the fact of existence alone is greater than the exact same imagined thing - he uses a trick to make the imagined thing be a thing that is beyond what can be imagined. So, in fact you didn't imagine it, because - according to the argument - you couldn't imagine it.

But if it was exactly the same god that I imagined in my imagination, would just the fact that that same God existed in reality make him/it greater? I don't think Anselm manages to prove this conclusively.

Anselm's "proof" does have some value, in that it causes one to ponder on the concept of "God". If God existed, what would God be? Anselm seems to give a workable answer to this question, being: " God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived of".

The terminology "greater" could be construed in a few ways: "more perfect", "more powerful" and the ultimate end of the spectrum would imply " that which is all-encompassing", or "that which is being" "or "that which is necessary for being" .

If one reads the rest of Anselm's work, which consists largely of prayers, one gets the impression that Anselm seeks to establish for himself the nature of God. He mentions that he seeks God, and one would assume this seeking to be a seeking both of reason and of faith, of intellect and emotion. As I've already mentioned, in his eagerness to find God, Anselm makes certain jumps in logic, and makes base assumptions that is not necessarily grounded in empirical truth -neither does he in any way prove these assumptions on which he builds a priori arguments.

However, does not even Plato and Aristotle (who influenced Anselm) do this? It would seem that most paradigms presented by philosophers in the course of history, are built upon certain assumptions - of which acceptance is essential towards accepting the logic of the rest of the argument.

Ultimately I don't hold Anselm's argument as successful enough to hold up against critical scrutiny, because a few of the assumptions he bases his argument on, are value judgments and unproven, and in addition, are in this day and age, not assumptions that are universally held.

EDIT: Nathan has in the comment section below, helped me to clarify my position regarding Anselm, so I'd like to add my conversation with him in the thread below as an addendum to this review.

[Zachary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anselm offers in this short text what philosophers have called the ontological argument since at least the time of Immanuel Kant. This first point is important, since, so far as we know, no other commentators, such as Descartes and Leibniz, refer to Anselm’s supposed proof of the existence God in such terms until Kant. Philosophers since Kant, which include analytic thinkers not especially steeped in the Christian philosophical tradition, have somewhat obsessed over this text; in many ways, they have missed and continue to miss the real thrust of this rather complicated spiritual exercise. Just as many expositors discount the overtly confessional elements of other philosophically pertinent Christian texts such as the Confessions, secular philosophers have expressed little interest in the marked oscillation between despair and joy, exasperation and ecstasy, frustration and spiritual lucidity in Anselm’s Proslogion. They have, in short, either failed to appreciate its literary elements or, more accurately, have refused to take seriously its confessional Christian character. More provocatively, commentators have repeatedly insisted that Anselm’s primary question in the Proslogion is, “Does God exist?” when, in fact, he asks, “How do we see God?” “You are everywhere, why do I not see you, since you are present?” Anselm writes in the first chapter. “Where is this lux inaccessibilis? And how am I to approach it?”

When one approaches the text from this confessional perspective, rather than as an analytic proof of the existence of God, its architecture appears rather different. The first fifteen “chapters” (Anselm did not include such subdivisions) constitute an address—a prayer, really—addressed to God, which culminates in a moment of apophaticism in chapter fifteen. The next eleven chapters effectively constitute God’s response, or rather, Anselm’s response to God’s response to his initial prayer. In these latter chapters, Anselm explores how his method by which to perceive God helps him better understand the joy that is God and its manifestation in Christ’s Body, the Church. Whereas Anselm starts his prayer somewhat exasperated in his failure to perceive God—“He wants to find you, but he does not know where you are. He aspires to seek you, but he does not know your face. Lord, you are my God, and you are my Lord, but I have never seen you”—he ends it with a vision of overabundant joy shared by the faithful, a collective joy as the redeemed perception (juxtaposed with Anselm’s frustrated efforts at perception earlier) of God in the Church. Its members experience the joy of God, so overabundant it exceeds their capacity for joy—"For I have found a joy that is full and more than full. Indeed, when the heart, the mind, the soul, and the whole human person are filled with that joy, there will still remain joy beyond measure. The whole of that joy will therefore not enter into those who rejoice; instead those who rejoice will enter wholly into that joy.” The faithful revel in each other’s joy, such that Anselm’s vision of the eschaton is intensely communal—“Just as everyone in that perfect happiness will love God incomparably more than himself and all others with him, so everyone will rejoice inconceivably more in God’s happiness than in his own, or in that of everyone else with him.” What has happened here? And how can we have strayed so far from the “proof” that has fascinated thinkers from Thomas Aquinas to John Updike?


A brief review of the “proof” may be in order. For the sake of utmost clarity, I will refer to the Latin Anselm himself uses. The thrust of Anselm’s proof comes in chapters two and three; chapter fifteen, which I have mentioned, receives much less attention, despite its centrality to Anselm’s entire spiritual project. While there are numerous ways to express the proof formally, Anselm presents it loosely as follows: The fool from Psalms 14 and 53 says that there is no God. Yet Anselm responds to the fool (in himself? in another?) that, whatever his skepticism, he must certainly understand aliquid quo nihil majus cogitari possit, even if “he does not understand that it [whatever it may be] exists in reality.” However, the id quo majus cogitari nequit cannot exist solely in in intellectu and not in re, since, if this were true, the id quo majus cogitari nequit would not in fact be id quo majus cogitari nequit. One could, in other words, conceive of aliquid majus. In order for the id quo majus cogitari nequit to be that which it definitionally must be, it must exist both in intellectu and in re, which means, therefore, that it must exist. Only God is the id quo majus cogitari nequit, so that, consequently, God exists.

Jean-Luc Marion perceptively observes that this demonstration, whatever it is, is decidedly not ontological. He uses Kant’s own definition of that term to make this evaluation: such a proof must infer the existence of a supreme cause absolutely a priori from mere concepts, specifically such that this supreme cause attains existence solely by means of its pure essence. Put simply, to qualify as properly ontological, the proof must start from a pure concept, and it must start from the pure concept of an essence. For Marion, Anselm rather starts from the non-concept of the id quo majus cogitari nequit; as per the definition of this non-concept, “the maximum of the thinkable must not be completely conceived,” Marion writes. “Moreover it must not be conceived in the strictest sense of a concept.” The maximum of that which one can think means that one reaches the limits of one’s power to think at all, and that the majus itself (God, whatever God is) transcends this limit. “The cogitatio has to admit its inability to think (cogitare nequit) some item that transcends [its] transcendental limits,” Marion explains further. “To think about God does not mean only to admit that he exists, but to admit precisely that he remains beyond and outside” the intellectus. God exists despite the fact that the non-concept of God transcends, or rather escapes, what we finite creatures can think. God is in re precisely because he is not circumscribed to the intellectus alone.

At the end of his article on Anselm’s Proslogion, Marion posits that Anselm’s so-called proof of the existence of God, however rational, is non-metaphysical. Anselm thus poses a question to his readers: can one use reason beyond or outside the field of metaphysics? Can a non-metaphysical, rational demonstration be valid? These are provocative questions, to which Marion offers that Anselm himself seems to have undercut the primacy of metaphysical discourse on God. While Marion presents a persuasive case for the non-metaphysical nature of Anselm’s text, one need not accede to Marion’s characteristic metaphysical skepticism to see that Anselm does not offer here some analytic proof of the existence of God reducible to clear propositions and a tidy conclusion. Beyond the fact that, as noted earlier, Anselm is primarily concerned with how to perceive God, whom he knows is in him and surrounds him and pervades his environment yet remains imperceptible, the Proslogion offers a rich account of the spiritual senses, a stark apophaticism that strikes at the futility of any attempt to identify God in a concept, and an ecstatic vision of human and divine joy in which the creation is ultimately reconciled. For such a short treatise that Anselm himself hesitates to call a book, the Proslogion is a unique, powerful text that deserves more attention for reasons other than those most often celebrated by philosophers.

[Annalise]

(Excerpts)

[Ruth Donigian · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Excerpts)
My head is still spinning

[Joao Baptista · Rating 5 out of 5]

É a Anselmo de Cantuária que se deve um dos mais famosos e influentes argumentos para a existência de Deus, que ainda hoje anima discussões teóricas. É um argumento puramente dedutivo e que parte de premissas não epistemicamente justificadas (pelo menos não directamente) e que, por isso, caso seja sólido, permite estabelecer de forma definitiva a existência de Deus. Para conseguir tal feito, Anselmo parte da definição da natureza divina como “algo maior do que o qual nada pode ser pensando”, vindo a concluir, por raciocínios de redução ao absurdo, não apenas que um tal “algo” existe na realidade, como existe necessariamente, isto é, não poderia não existir.
Desde a sua formulação que este argumento foi amplamente discutido, sendo tanto criticado como secundado por muitos filósofos e teólogos. A primeira grande crítica – ainda no tempo de vida de Anselmo – foi feita pelo monge Gaunilo, que entre outros argumentos, usou o famoso exemplo da ilha perdida. No essencial, Gaunilo diz que um argumento desse tipo poderia ser usado para provar a existência de uma ilha perdida, desde que fosse concebida como uma ilha maximamente perfeita.
Anselmo respondeu às críticas de Gaunilo, precisando e explicitando (quando não revendo) o seu pensamento.
São esses três textos que estão reunidos neste volume, com tradução directa do latim por Costa Macedo e enriquecidos com um desenvolvido e esclarecedor comentário.
Concorde-se ou não com o argumento, ele é uma fonte fecunda de pensamento especulativo que nos interpela e desafia, um momento imprescindível da história da metafísica medieval. Como disse Bertrand Russell a propósito dele, se um argumento continua a ser discutido e a dividir opiniões 900 anos depois da sua formulação, então não pode deixar de ser levado a sério.

[S.M.Y Kayseri · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is not excessive to say that St Anselm was one of the first medieval philosophers that utilized reasoning in his argument in proving the existence of God in the Middle Ages. He lived in an age where the dynamism of St Thomas Acquinas has been replaced by rigid and rote learning of scholasticism, the Christianity world choked with heavy dose of dogmatism. But he realized that reason and revelation stood with each other, instead of against. And thus he proposed a novel argument which since has been called as the ontological argument.

He argues that we can think of a something-that-there-is-no-greater-of, and this is understood by our mind. At the same time we also can think of that something-that-there-is-no-greater-of to be exist, and this is beyond mere thought. And existence is greater than mere thought. Because God is something-that-there-is-greater of, thus God exists.

The argument clearly begged the question of there is difference between what we think and what actually exists. Gaunilo rebutted Anselm by saying that when we think of an island in the middle of nowhere, it does not follows that there is indeed such island.

But that is just evading and downplaying the argument. If I think of a probable thing, such as Hercules is the strongest man in the world, then indeed it follows that my thoughts does not necessarily entails its truth, or its existence. But it we think of a necessary thing, such as the rising of Sun, or that human are mortal, the robustness of its necessity guaranteed its truthfulness, and thus its existence. Because something Absolute must exists, such as natural laws , causality etc, the springfountain of the Absoluteness must also exists.

Just as the fragrance is something necessary to be perceived by everyone cognizant, the fragrance points towards the existence of itself and also its cause. The directionality and relationality of our perception necessitates this.

[Isaiah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very hard to wrap your head around. Once you understand, it is hard to not see how simple, yet intellectually profitable Anselm's argument is.

Very easy to read, exceedingly difficult to truly understand.

God bless you St. Anselm

Edit: Originally written for the Proslogion but intended for the Proslogion w/ Gaulino's Objections & Anselm's Replies

[Robert Hughes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fun easy to read and short piece that was tremendously influential in the history of philosophy. I was pleasantly surprised in how devotional this work ended up being.

[B. P. Rinehart · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have for about a year been trying to get to St. Anselm of Canterbury and now I finally get to give my short impression of him and his innovation that changed philosophy. One of the main reasons I found out about him is that his feast day happens to be on my birthday so, yay for coincidence. While I'm not going to give a full run-down of this work I will give some of my main impressions of it.

So for as we know this is the seminal piece of philosophical work that introduced the ontological argument a.k.a. the argument for the existence of God. Though the author and the work are now obscure many people to this day still respond or try to exercise or take down that argument. I was surprised though to see that the ontological argument dosen't actually occupy that much of this work. he writes about two paragraphs on it and he's done.

What's most fascinating is that he is not writing this work as an attack on a particular atheist (since there were no atheist to attack him at this point in European history) but just for the hell of it. He simply felt that since it was on his mind he should demonstrate why God is so all encompassing, awesome, etc. I must say though it may have some holes in it now, if I were a literate person in St. Anselm's time I would definitely find no fault in this.

What this work is concerned with is the understanding humans can have of God and his ways using reason. This he spends a lot of time on and it dominates most of the Proslogion. This would become the essential building block for all of medieval philosophy up until the Renaissance and [Protestant] Reformation.

So while the tongue twisters and super-medieval language was a big turn-off for me I overall liked this , keeping in regard the time and place it was written.

I read this as a part of
Classics of Western Philosophy

[Ethan]

A really beautiful little book. Setting aside for a moment Anselm's arguments themselves, I think it should at least be made very clear that this is a genuinely wonderful work of theology for the most part. Sure, some of the language makes itself clunky in translation, but for the most part this is an emotionally resonant, meditative text. Take, for example, the introductory segment, in which Anselm sets out Faith Seeking Understanding:

Quick now, little man, flee a short while your occupations; hide yourself a short time from your tumultuous thoughts. Cast off your burdensome cares now, and put off until later your laborious distresses. Empty a little bit for God, and rest a little bit in him. Enter into the chamber of your mind, close off all things besides God and what may help you in seeking him, and with door closed seek him. Speak now, my whole heart, speak now to God: I seek your countenance; your countenance, O Lord, I seek again.

What a beautiful passage!

And, to some degree, it is also partly the experience of the writing, what is driving the content, that affects the reception of the arguments within too. So now let us consider the arguments again.
Proslogion is of course best known for being the origin of Anselm's ontological argument. It is debated which sections this argument actually occurs in, whether it is just II, II and III, or indeed the whole text. I am partial probably to either of the latter two. This argument is generally received to approximate this line of thought: God is "that than which none greater can be thought," it is greater to exist than to not exist, and therefore, because God is the greatest, He must exist. Rightly, this argument has been ridiculed to death, most notably by Gaunilo, in this text, who argues that we may as well think of a perfect island than which none greater can be thought, and posit that it must exist to be the greatest.

But, as you might already suspect, I'm going to say that this is a really poor way to receive Anselm's argument, indeed it's probably an outright misreading. To motivate this thought here are a couple ideas I would follow up with:

Firstly, Anselm is particularly careful with his definition of God. God is "that than which nothing greater is able to be thought," a seemingly wordy definition for what Anselm might mean, "the greatest thing." But the reason for this wording is quite important. At least as far as I understand it, it seems to me that there is a great deal of thinking through the negative, or through progression, about God, but we do not consider Him as a direct object of thought so to speak. Anselm speaks of God in the first chapter as dwelling in "unapproachable light," of the difficulty of seeking Him, desiring Him, despite perhaps never having seen his face. This is a very purposed presentation, precisely because God outstrips our intellectual faculties for Anselm. We can consider Him only in these deeply limited ways. Though we can understand what is meant for God to be "that than which nothing greater is able to be thought," we can never consider God as a direct object of thought. He is approached, endlessly, perhaps eternally, but not grasped directly. He dwells in unapproachable light.

Secondly, and following from the first point I made here, the fact that God is not a direct object of thought, but understand by an eternal kind of approaching, should allow us to understand the misunderstanding of the Ontological Argument. Most commonly, as mentioned above, we tend to think of the huge flaw of the Ontological Argument to come from the idea that "existence is greater" premise that applies to "that than which nothing greater can be thought," and this is how we get the reductio in the perfect island objection. It is not clear to me, however, that Anselm really makes this argument. He does regard existence as greater, but not by positing this bluntly, but rather through approach toward God, comparing greater to lesser existents:

Who, for example, is not able to think at least this - even if he does not believe that that which he is thinking is in reality - namely, that if there is something good that has a starting-point and an end, then better by much more is a good that, although it begins, does not cease to be? And just as the latter is better than the former, so also that which has neither an end nor a starting-point is better than the latter, even if it is always passing from the past through the present toward the future. And still better than this is that which in no manner needs to change or to move or is compelled to do so - whether something of this sort is in reality or not.

Nothing greater than this is able to be thought, and thus God is approached not through definition, but by a kind of negative, contrasting approach. Of course, God cannot be subsumed under the intellect, as Anselm notes, as this would be to put one's intellect as the Abovemost (which is what God is), and so it is necessary that we approach in this sense. What is also clear is that Anselm is not defining God into existence by stating that he is in a possible world, is the greatest, and thereby necessary (like Plantinga might), but that "that which nothing greater is able to be thought" is understood through a progression of existent things in the first place in order to get to the thought which traces God's contours so to speak.

Is this all to say Anselm's argument is successful? I'm not sure of that, but I'm not interested in that for the moment. Rather, I just wished to point out that Anselm's Ontological Argument is deeply unappreciated, and quite misapprehended. Further, I think this little work deserves far more reading, rather than the brutish logical formalisations it is subjected to. They do not do the work justice.

Very good.

[Hayden Olberding · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anselm makes a historic argument in this book — but is chronically misunderstood. I do not wish to spoil it for everyone, but if you remove the argument from the book, of course it doesn’t work. In fact, you need only read the first sentence of the introduction to disprove Anselm’s argument as the modern person understands it. The original title was “Fides Quaerens Intellectum”. As translated by Williams; “Faith Seeking Understanding”.

The fundamental undercurrent for Anselm’s argument is the very fact: you cannot think of anything greater than the Christian God without having faith that this Christian God is the God of The Bible. Faith seeking understanding means through faith in seeking the face of God, you will find understanding in Him and through Him by the Living Word.

[Adam Lees · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not sure if the argument in the book is sound. If I have to pick, I'll say no. However, Anselm is a fantastically original and nimble thinker. This book is a joy to read, and bloody challenging to think through, even if you decide it's nonsense in the end.

Anselm was not standing on the shoulders of giants, he was one of the earliest lights out of the so-called "dark age" and so had few contemporaries to play off and little access to philosophical tradition. Even so, he came up with one of the few genuinely original arguments in philosophy of religion from the last millennium, and arguably anticipated modal concepts which weren't widely used or recognise for another 800 years.

[Alejandro Alvarez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este libro apologético provee un contexto histórico importante para leer a Anselmo. Ayuda a entender el lugar del libro en toda la literatura de Anselmo.
La pluma de Anselmo es diferente a la de otros autores, comienza y termina orando, admira los atributos de Dios, y comprende la supremacía de Dios por sobre cualquier cosa que pueda pensarse.

[Christian Barrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anselm’s ontological argument finds its origin in this work, but the work is more profound than just this simple apologetic. The amazing work is a series of meditations on God that draws the reader to think rationally and love God more.

[Jade Cahoon · Rating 4 out of 5]

🤔

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be thought. So can it be that no such nature exists, since 'the fool has said in his heart, "There is no God"'?"

[Micah Chandler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this deserves more credit as a legitimate investigation into ontological theology than some people think.

[Nilab]

assigned: [ch 2-4; Gaunilo, Reply on Behalf of the Fool; Anselm's Reply]

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I took The Philosophy of Religion course at Grinnell College during the first semester of 1973/74 with Paul Schaich, a professor new to the school that term.

Dr. Schaich was a double Ph.D. His first degree was in physics. Reading Heidegger's Being and Time, however, upset him enough to change over to philosophy.

Schaich was unlike any other teacher I'd ever had. First, he wasn't much interested in religion at all. We read what the department of religion required, books like Rudolf Otto's Idea of the Holy, but treated them only cursorily. More than half the semester was spent on the ontological argument--or, more properly stated, more than half the semester was spent watching our teacher try to get the argument to work.

By "work" I mean constructing a proof. To do this Schaich employed modal logic, something none of us in the class had ever used--and Schaich ended up using five different systems of it before finding one that did the job.

Every day we'd come into class and be handed mimeographed results of the class before, often supplemented by pages of Schaich's subsequent flashes of inspiration. Such discussion as occurred was primarily his questioning himself, scratching his balding head, then answering himself with scribbles on the blackboard. I tried to keep up. Paul had become a bit of a friend during the course of the term, he being new and not knowing anyone, so I was taking the class seriously and would question him about matters during evenings of long, mostly philosophical, conversations in the student forum.

Later, much later, I actually took a course in symbolic logic while studying philosophy at Loyola University Chicago. Although it was hard to take too seriously, natural language being virtually impossible to adequately translate into symbolic notation, it was fun and I was fondly reminded of Paul Schaich.

As regards Anselm's argument: The interesting thing is to imagine a world in which his argument would have the power to convince. Otherwise, as Kant wrote: "existence is not a predicate."

[David S. T. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got around to reading this after I finished Descartes Meditation on First Philosophy. I started it because it seems that a very similar proof for God was used (and about 500 years earlier) so I wanted to see the original in its context. The proof presented here, later called the ontological argument, basically says that one can imagine a being which none greater can exist, for this being to be imagined then he must exist because something which does exist is greater than something which doesn't, this being is God and hence God does exist. At least that was my understanding of it. I don't really find much weight in the argument but it was pretty influential, obliviously with Descartes and others using it again later.

To my surprise though, the proof takes up a single one paragraph long chapter in this short work and really isn't very prominent. The majority of the work is Anselm mostly praising God and it reads in a semi devotional fashion. Anselm goes on about God's mercy with how he is good both to the just and the wicked, this is evident by how the wicked can also prosper the same as the just (I guess this changes when the wicked are cast into hell??)

This is followed up by a reply of a certain individual named Guanilo, who speaks on the behalf of the fool. He tells a story in an almost mocking tone about imagine a perfect island which is greater than any other, and regardless if anyone has ever stepped foot on the island or seen it, it must exist because if it didn't then it wouldn't be greater than any island which do in fact exist.

The last part of the short book is Anselm's reply to this, but it was mostly lost on me, I'd have to read it again but his word plays got a little hard to follow and by then I was tired of the whole ontological argument.

As for the book itself, its pretty interesting to read this middle ages philosophy and get into their mindset, and no doubt the book itself is important for historical purposes. Also the non ontological part of the Proslogion makes for an interesting saint type of devotional read.

[Bethany Konopelski · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is quite evident from the remarks of my fellow reviewers that very few people today even begin to grasp what my dear friend Anselm is saying. He is not saying all the ridiculous and obviously illogical things many claim, such as, 'if you can think of it, it exists,' or 'the best things must exist because they are best and it is better to exist.' No, Anselm is making a distinction, one which I think Scotus better articulates, but that aside, what Anselm means by 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' is not the same as 'the best of the best.' It is a QUALITATIVE greatness, not a QUANTITATIVE one. That is to say, it is a MODAL distinction. His view of infinity is not a number line that keeps going, the most forever, but MAXIMALLY INTENSE, as my metaphysics prof put it (I think he got that from Scotus). God is something totally other than us. This is what it means to be a necessary being, as distinguished from a contingent being. And don't let the term necessary confuse you; this is not a circular argument. And this makes sense because a finite universe needs to be sustained by an infinite Creator (which would be the first tier of Scotus's argument). I think Anselm's argument is groundbreaking and beautiful. It really clicked when I first read it in high school, although I couldn't verbalize these distinctions initially, despite having an intuition of it. Scotus adopts and perfects it, but it was Anselm's first. This is a must read, as long as you truly strive to understand the guy and don't succumb to Gaunilo's misunderstandings.

[Paul D. Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised by the heartfelt prayers and the earnestness which pervades this little pamphlet. Some of the theosophical speculations are enjoyable. Anslem errs horribly when he tries to reconcile God’s justice and mercy without a single reference to Christ, the cross, or penal substitution. That passage demonstrates the importance of keeping theology well grounded in Scripture. Anselm also seems to blur the line between the Fall and the noetic effects thereof, as if the Fall was comprised solely of our inability to understand and perceive God; or even (much worse) that we have Fallen by virtue of failing to perceive God—that the failure of understanding is the sin for which we are cursed. All horribly wrong, although the work as a whole is a true exposition of epistemological limitations we face in doing theology or coming to know God. In that sense the book is a hymn to God’s transcendence: God is immanent in His being, but transcendent to our experience. One could say (Anselm does not go this far) that we must bring God’s immanence to our experience through faith. Anselm’s description of heaven and of all the good gifts God gives to His people at the end of the work is wonderful.

[Tamakatsura]

📢 VENDO QUESTO LIBRO!

Ho letto e amato questo libro, ma non posso più tenerlo.
Per questo motivo ho deciso di venderlo: potete aggiudicarvelo alla modica somma di 6,50 €!

Se siete interessati, scrivetemi un messaggio privato.
➡️ Sto vendendo anche il Introduzione a Anselmo d'Aosta di Sofia Vanni Rovighi (Serie I filosofi Laterza): magari potrebbe interessarti!

📚 Condizioni del libro:
Il volume è stato letto e studiato, ma l'ho ricoperto e tenuto con grande cura. Non ci sono pieghe sulla spina, ma sono presenti sottolineature e annotazioni a matita a bordo pagina, nonché post-it con sommari dell'argomentazione di Anselmo e della disputa con Gaunilone.
Se avete bisogno del Proslogion per motivi di studio, le mie piccole note potrebbero esservi utili!
Posso inviare fotografie dettagliate del volume: chiedetemele tramite un messaggio privato.

📦 Metodo di spedizione: Piego di Libri
0 -2 Kg Ordinario 1,28 € / Raccomandato 3,63 €
2 -5 Kg Ordinario 3,95 € / Raccomandato 6,30 €

Pagamento: tramite ricarica Postepay.

[Maria · Rating 4 out of 5]

The original title of the book, Fides Quaerens Intellectum (Faith Seeking Understanding), is a good description of what Anselm was trying to do with this work. From all the evidence there is, it seems he already believed all the conclusions to the arguments in the work, but his purpose was to strengthen his faith by backing up his beliefs with sound arguments. He does seem to succeed for the most part. Everything he says about God is logical and in accordance with Catholic theology, and he offers decent arguments about various attributes of God.

Overall it's a good read, and very interesting to discuss. It is a very good example of medieval Christian thought and is something anyone interested in philosophy can profit from.

[Arkar Kyaw · Rating 3 out of 5]

This kid is smart. The ontological argument is a powerful one which I guess we would keep talking about in analytical philosophy. The only problem I am having is that his argument relies heavily on the superlative quality of God. Can I say God is the biggest douchebag that than which no greater douchebag can be thought? Nah, that would be blasphemy. Oh well.

Read only chapter 2, 3, and the replies. The rest is irrelevant.

[Thomas Sheridan · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was cool to read the original of this classic argument for Gods existence, however, the replies seemed to me repetitive and slightly inaccessible... it may be my ignorance and lack of patience in trying to follow though.
What I loved was the pure beauty in which Anselm described God's perfections - all can benefit from the reading of this holy man's work.

[Jonso · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aunque no consiga probar la existencia de Dios me parece realmente interesante su argumentación. Más aún la de la respuesta de Gaunilo, que no se expresa con mil recursos así que se le entiende mejor y se profundiza mejor en su argumentación.

[Joshua Smart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ah. The ontological proof. Good times. Good times.

[Christopher McCaffery · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's pretty good mystagogy.

[Morgs · Rating 3 out of 5]

Argument framed in a way that immediately excludes the nonbeliever, but the dialogue between Anselm and Gaunilo is enlightening and at times a bit savage.