A CONTEXTUAL EXAMINATION OF ST. ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT MARTA E. LAYTON Bachelor of Science in Mathematical Sciences The University of North Carolina at Greensboro May, 2005 submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN PHILOSOPHY at the CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY August, 2008 This thesis has been approved for the Department of PHILOSOPHY and the College of Graduate Studies by ________________________________________ Thesis Chairperson, Dr. Nicholas Moutafakis ________________________________________ Department & Date ________________________________________ Dr. Martin Harvey ________________________________________ Department & Date ________________________________________ Dr. Diane Steinberg ________________________________________ Department & Date ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In many regards a masters thesis is a solitary endeavor. However, this project would not have been possible without the assistance of many people. I am particularly thankful to my thesis advisor and committee chairperson, Dr. Nicholas Moutafakis, for the guidance and critique that helped me refine the ideas presented here. I also thank the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Diane Steinberg and Dr. Martin Harvey, and many other faculty and students of the Cleveland State University Department of Philosophy, whose willingness to discuss my ideas has been invaluable. iii A CONTEXTUAL EXANIMATION OF ST. ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT MARTA LAYTON ABSTRACT Many scholars, both in the history of philosophy and in contemporary times, have criticized and defended St. Anselm's ontological argument. Much of the work on the subject has evaluated the argument of Proslogion II1 and III using symbolic logic, and has either focused on presenting what the author thinks St. Anselm was saying in those chapters, or has critiqued the logic of the ontological argument's structure or of the plausibility of its premises. Few authors have looked at how St. Anselm's conception of God in the later chapters of the Proslogion and in the Monologion affect the ontological argument. Fewer still have inspected the way St. Anselm would have been affected by historical events and by the work of earlier philosophers. This thesis aims to examine the ontological argument of St. Anselm, both in terms of why St. Anselm chose to develop it as he did and whether it is logically valid and sound. I will begin by exploring the historical events that would have influenced St. Anselm's thought, such as the hierarchical nature of Benedictine monasticism and the power struggles between the Visigoths and Franks in medieval France. I will then turn to St. Anselm's writings, looking at the theistic proofs he gives in both the Monologion and 1 Throughout this thesis I will use this notation to refer to the chapter number of the book being discussed. It allows me to avoid less direct phrasing, such as "the second chapter of the Proslogion." iv the Proslogion. In this way I will be able to identify the ontological argument that was advanced by St. Anselm. Having identified the Anselmian ontological argument, I will then evaluate this argument's logical validity and soundness. I will first consider what logical sources from antiquity St. Anselm would likely have had access to. This will allow me to establish the system of logic St. Anselm would have used in evaluating his argument. I will conclude this thesis by critiquing the challenges raised by Gaunilo, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Immanuel Kant to Anselm's argument. This approach makes it possible to evaluate St. Anselm according to the logic he would have known when constructing his argument, and thereby to avoid anachronistic criticisms. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER I. Introduction .................................................................................... 1 II. HISTORICAL INFLUENCES ON ST. ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ………………………………… 4 Introduction ………………………………………………. 4 The Development of Christian Monasticism …………….. 6 Ecumenicism and the Ontological Argument ……………. 11 Toward a Definition of Power …………………………… 16 Conclusion ……………………………………………….. 23 III. ST. ANSELM'S PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN THE MONOLOGION ……………………………………………. 25 Introduction ………………………………………………. 25 Goodness and Greatness in the Monologion …………….. 26 Existence in the Monologion …………………………….. 29 Conclusion ……………………………………………….. 35 vi IV. ST. ANSELM'S PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN THE PROSLOGION ……………………………………………… 36 Introduction ………………………………………………. 36 The Argument in Proslogion II …………………………... 37 One Argument or Two? …………………………………... 43 The Argument in Proslogion III ………………………….. 46 Conclusion ………………………………………………... 49 V. THE INFLUENCE OF CLASSICAL LOGIC ON THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT …………………………………. 50 Introduction ……………………………………………….. 50 Logic Before Aristotle …………………………………….. 51 Aristotelian Logic …………………………………………. 55 Definitions and First Principles …………………………… 59 Stoic and Megarian Logic ………………………………… 63 Textual Transmission and Medieval Logic ………………. 66 Conclusion ………………………………………………. 69 VI. DEFENDING THE FOOL: CRITICISMS OF ST. ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ………………………………… 72 Introduction ……………………………………………… 72 Historical Criticisms …………………………………….. 73 Gaunilo ………………………………………….. 73 St. Thomas Aquinas …………………………….. 78 Immanuel Kant …………………………………. 80 vii The Validity of Proslogion II's Argument ……………….. 84 The Validity of Proslogion III's Argument ………………. 87 Conclusion ……………………………………………….. 93 VII. Conclusion ……………………………………………………….. 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………….. 97 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Of the various arguments for the existence of God, the ontological argument is one of the most influential to the history of later thought. Many of the medieval arguments for God's existence are not seriously considered viable by contemporary scholars, but the ontological argument is still heavily debated. At first glance, the argument seems too simple to survive scrutiny, and it appears that it merely asserts God's existence rather than proving it. However, when the ontological argument is examined more closely, we discover that it is fiendishly difficult to disprove. St. Anselm presented the ontological argument in Proslogion II and III. He begins by defining God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" and observes that, for the fool to deny God's existence and to understand what he is saying, he must grant God existence in the understanding. St. Anselm argues that God cannot exist only within the fool's understanding because it would be greater for God to exist beyond the 1 understanding than to be limited to the fool's understanding. This proof draws on a metaphysical assertion that existence not limited to the understanding is greater than existence limited to the understanding – what a contemporary philosopher might describe as the belief that existence (as more than just a concept) is a greatness-enhancing quality. The claim that existence is a predicate of any sort is very controversial in post-Kantian philosophy, but this problem does not seem to have troubled St. Anselm; neither St. Anselm nor his contemporaries questioned this aspect of the ontological argument. This thesis will therefore focus on other challenges to the ontological argument that were more debated by philosophers in St. Anselm's own day, such as whether a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived" is itself conceivable, and whether the fool understands God in the way the ontological argument requires. The ontological argument was not St. Anselm's first attempt to prove God's existence. In his earlier work, The Monologion, St. Anselm offered a proof built on observations about the way different beings inherit their characteristics. If a being existed, St. Anselm argued, it either received its existence through another being or through itself. If its existence was inherited, then the being had existence of a lower sort than the being from which it inherited its existence. Moreover, there could be only one being through which all beings received their existence, and this being had existence of a higher type than any other being. St. Anselm also developed similar arguments for greatness and goodness, and observed that the being through which all other beings inherit these characteristics was the same being, which St. Anselm named God. Since all other beings receive their existence through God, and since a being could not pass on a characteristic that it did not itself possess, St. Anselm concluded that God must exist. 2 Since St. Anselm considered this proof successful, it seems odd that he would publish a second proof for God's existence. St. Anselm explains his reasons for offering this additional proof in the prologue of the Proslogion. He writes, After I had published, at the solicitous entreaties of a certain brethren, a brief work [the Monologion] as an example of meditation on the grounds of faith, in the person of one who investigates, in a course of silent reasoning with himself, matters of which he is ignorant; considering that this book was knit together by the linking of many arguments, I began to ask myself whether there might be found a single argument which would require no other for its proof than itself alone.2 In the Monologion St. Anselm is writing in the person of someone investigating questions