In this argument, Anselm starts by defining
God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived (TTWNGCBC). He then
goes on to say that everyone has an idea of God as TTWNGCBC as by using the
word ‘God’ it demonstrates an understanding and recognition of the principle of
God. This means that even the fool that "says in his heart, ‘there is no
God'" (psalms 14:1 and 53:1) is contradicting himself as he is showing
that he holds a concept of what God is. Anselm uses the example of the painter
to further explain this point as the painter has an idea of a painting, which after
he paints it exists not only in his mind but also reality. Anselm states that
it is greater to exist in reality than in concept. In order for God
to fulfil his definition as TTWNGCBC, he must exist in reality rather than
just in concept. Therefore, God exists.
However, Gaunilo responded to Anselm in his argument
‘on behalf of the fool’ which is a reduction ad abusrdem argument. Gaunilo used
the concept of a perfect island ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’
to show how a word alone cannot explain its existence if we have not experienced
it. He argued that just because you can conceive of something, does not mean it
exists in reality.
Anselm developed his argument in order to
overcome Gaunilo’s criticisms. He argues that comparing God to an island is an
unfair comparison as an island is contingent (can be thought of to not exist) whereas
God’s existence is necessary (cannot be thought of as not existing). Nothing on
this Earth can be compared to God due to the contingent nature of it. A God who
cannot be thought of as not existing is greater than a God who can be thought
of as not existing; therefore, Anselm proves that God exists necessarily.
Good start, Aoife. Couple of points:
ReplyDelete1. It's not written as a response to Psalm 14/53 - he just uses the first verse from each ('the Fool says in his heart...') to illustrate his argument.
2. This is a bit light. For your own notes, fine, but as an explanation of the argument it needs more detail (especially given that this was a homework task). You could have mentioned the painter analogy to help explain Anselm's point, for example.
Hope this helps!