Guanilo Succesfully Defears Anselms Ontological Argument Flashcards
(18 cards)
INTRO
Introduction of St Anselm & The ontological argument
St Anselm of Canterbury presented the ontological argument in Prsologian Books II and III.
This is a deductive, a priori argument for the existence of God based on reason alone as opposed to empirical evidence.
INTRO
What did St. Anselm argue within Prosologian books II and III
- Anselm defined God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”
- He argued that if this being exists INTELLECTU (in the mind), then it must also exist in RE (in reality), because existing in reality is greater than existing merely in the mind
- TO deny Gods existence, therefore, is to fall into contradiction - because it would mean conceiving of the greatest possible thing while simultaneously denying the very thing that would make it great: existence.
INTRO
What quote does he open prosologians with
A quotation from PSALM 14:1
“The fool says in his heart, that there is no God”
Arguing that even the fool understands the definition of God, thus proving God’s existence through reason alone.
Introduction of Guanilo
Guanilo of marmoutiers, a contemporary monk, offered a response titled “on behalf of the fool”.
He defended the atheist position and challenged Anselms logic
“On Behalf of the fool”
Guanilos claim of misunderstanding mental concepts (2)
- Guanilo argued that merely understanding a term like God does not mean one believes in its actual existence
- He pointed out that one can understand the description of a thing without believing it exists (e.g. unicorns)
“On Behalf of the fool”
Guanilos claim of reduction to absurdity - The perfect Island (2)
- Guanilo proposed A REDUCTIO AS ABSURDUM, using the idea of a perfect island to show the flaws in Anselms logic
- According to Anselms reasoning, if we’ can conceive of a perfect island, it must exist in reality because real existence is greater than imagined existence - a clearly absurd conclusion
Aquinas’ support (2)
- Thomas Aquinas later agreed with Guanilo, stating that God’s nature is fundementally unknowable to humans that we cannot find reason from definition to existence where God is concerned.
- Aquinas in Summa theological stated that the ontological argument fails because we cannot define God with enough clarity for such logic to work
KANTS support (3)
- In his critique of Pure reason, he famously argued that ‘existence is not a predicate’
- Adding existence to a concept (e.g. a hundred real Thalers) does not change its definition - it only asserts its presence within reality
- Kant reinforces Guanilo’s view that we cannot move from concept to existence through logic alone.
Anselms response - The “Responsio”
(3)
- The ontological argument applies only to god, not to contingent or finite things like islands
- The concept of necessary existence belongs solely to a maximally great being (i.e. God), not to arbitrary constructs
- To deny God’s existence is logically incoherent, like claiming a triangle doesn’t have three sides.
Evaluation of Guanilos critique of mental concepts
Strengths (3)
- Guanilos point that we can imagine things that don’t exist is compelling. We often conceive of fictional or mythical entities without asserting their real existence
- this challenges Anselms claims that the idea of God necessarily leads to actual existence
- Supported by Kant, who insisted that existence must be synthetic, not analytic - you cannot derive it from concept alone.
Evaluation of Guanilos critique of mental concepts
Weaknesses (2)
- Anselm could argue that God, unlike mythical creatures, is a necessary being, and therefore unique
- The comparison between God and contingent beings (like unicorns or islands) may be a category error, failing to grasp the ontological argument of a maximally great being
Evaluation of the “perfect island” analogy
Strengths (2)
- Guanilos reductio exposes the problem of applying Anselms logic to anything “great” and concluding that it must exists
- It appeals to common sense: no one believes a perfect island must exist just because it can be imagined
Evaluation of the “perfect island” analogy
Weaknesses (2)
Anselm (and later Plantinga) would argue that the perfect island is not a logically coherent concept - there’s no objective maximum for an islands perfection
- The ontological argument is supposed to apply only to necessary beings, and islands are contingent, so the analogy fails in key areas.
Evaluation of Plantinga analogy and A posteriori criticism
Strengths (3)
- Guanilo uses the analogy of a painter to show that an idea in the mind doesn’t guarantee real existence.
- Aristotles four causes support his idea: the formal cause (idea) is not enough without efficient and material causes (action and matter)
- This undermines Anselms concept attempt to collapse the distinction between concept and reality.
Evaluation of Plantinga analogy and A posteriori criticism
Weaknesses (2)
- Anselm could argue that this only applied to created things. God is uncreated and exists A SE (from himself), so the analogy doesn’t apply
- For theists who accept divine simplicity and necessity, the distinction between concept and reality doesn’t hold for God.
Evaluation of Ontological argument within different worldviews
Strengths (3)
Guanilo operates within a more empirical, Aristolean worldview, which is dominant in contemporary philosophy
- Anselms Platonic metaphysics (that ideas are more real than matter) is less widely accepted today
- Wittgenstein may argue that Anselms logic may only work within certain “language games” - making it less persuasive universally.
Final Judgement
- Guanilo does successfully defeat Anselms ontological argument, particularly from the standpoint of a modern, empirical and Aristolean worldview.
- His criticisms about the distinction between concept reality, his use of reductio ad absurdum, and his insistence on posteriori evidence all undermine the ontological arguments claim to be a definititive, rational proof for Gods existence.
- Kant’s later support further strengthens Guanilos position by dismantling the central assumption that existence is a predicate
