Sadler's Lectures
Anselm Proslogion - The Ontological Argument Continued - Sadler's Lectures
This lecture discusses the medieval Christian thinker, monk, and bishop, Anselm of Canterbury's work, the Proslogion, and focuses on his discussion in chapters 3 and 4 of the being of God, which Anselm has argued in chapter 2 can be demonstrated , beginning from the formula "that that which nothing greater can be thought" (quo maius cogitari non potest). In chapter 3, Anselm further argues that God cannot be thought not to exist, which then raises a question about how the Biblical Fool is able to say in his heart that there is no God. This is resolved in chapter 4, where Anselm makes a distinction between two modes of "thinking"
To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler
If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM
You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler
- Duration:
- 14m
- Broadcast on:
- 22 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
(upbeat music) Welcome to the Sadler Lectures Podcast. Responding to popular demand, I'm converting my philosophy videos into sound files you can listen to anywhere you can take an MP3. If you like what you hear and want to support my work, go to patreon.com/sadler. I hope you enjoy this lecture. In St. Anselm's Proslogen, chapters three and four are continuing a line of argumentation that began in chapter two, which is often called, this is not Anselm's own term for it, of course, the ontological argument for God's existence. And some people in the 20th century have debated about how many ontological arguments Anselm actually has in Proslogen, chapters two through four. We're not gonna worry too much about classification like that. We're more interested in what's actually going on here. And you could look at it, if you like these terms, as being like a more high-powered ontological argument, not only arguing that God must exist, but that you can't even coherently think that God doesn't exist. So God has necessary existence in an even higher way. Now, that's an interesting approach, but really what we need to do is look at what's going on within the text and we'll see that there's even more to be discovered. So we begin with some reflections that are picking up the thread that began in the previous chapter. The previous chapter ended, there is no doubt that something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the understanding and in reality. And that is God, right? According to Anselm. So God truly exists and Anselm is gonna pick this up in chapter three using this language of truth in an adverbial way. This being, namely God, exists so truly, vera, right? Coming from verum in Latin. That it cannot be thought not to exist. And the Latin for this is running along these ways. Utiquesic vera est. Utnek, kogitari posit, known asa. So you notice there's similar language going on here. God is comias kogitari, known potes. There's a few variations of formulas in both this chapter and the previous chapter. And now we're also looking at what cannot be thought, right? So how does Anselm actually argue for this? Well, he's going to say, it's possible for us to think something exists, right? To conceptualize, you could say. So he says, poteskogitari esa aliquid. Kogitari can mean think, to think of, to conceptualize, however we want to frame it. Think is just fine though. So it's possible to think that something exists that cannot be thought not to exist. Now, this is a premise in an argument. So if there's any place that you really want to attack this, it's probably that one. Is it possible for us to think of something that cannot be thought not to exist? Or is this sort of an imagination, a fake thought, but whatever we think cannot be thought not to exist, actually could be thought not to exist if we just change our perspective. Anselm doesn't worry about that. He actually does think that it is possible for us to think of something like this that cannot be thought not to exist. Now, here's another step in the argument, and it's, you know, consonant with what happened in chapter two. Such a being that cannot be thought not to exist is greater than a being that can be thought not to exist. Being able to be thought not to exist is kind of a lack of perfection or being or whatever you want to think about it, right? There is a ordering one thing that is greater than the other. So if that then which a greater cannot be thought, this is the famous formula that is used not only in chapter two, but throughout the proslogen. And sometimes we call this cue after qualmius cogitari known potest, right? Which is that then which a greater cannot be thought. If that then which a greater cannot be thought to exist or to be can be thought not to exist, then it is not that then which a greater cannot be thought. We could actually think of something greater than it, namely a being that you cannot think not to exist. So what is the identity you could say of qualmius cogitari known potest? It not only has to be a being that must exist in reality as well as in the intellect. It also has to include this being such that it cannot be thought not to exist. If it lacked that it wouldn't be that then which nothing greater can be thought. So that then which nothing greater can be thought or cue or my is cogitari known potest exist. And now notice this term so truly, verre, verre cannot be thought not to exist. This appears to be adding something to our understanding of divine being, right? And he is going to go beyond just providing this argument. Remember that the Proselogian is indeed a meditation on not just the argument, but on God, right? And so he says, this is you, O Lord our God, you exist so truly, O Lord, you cannot be thought not to exist. And now here's where we get something new. Rightly so, for if some mind could think of something better than you, a creature would rise above the Creator and sit in judgment upon him, which is completely absurd. And sit in judgment is just basically a translation for a term that could be to judge Yudikharat, right? So the Creator would be judged by the created. And now not to say that the created things like us don't judge God all the time, we just don't do it right according to Anselm. And we sort of exceed ourselves in doing so. So he goes on and he says, you alone, among all things have existence or being Esse most truly, verissime, so not just so truly, but most truly, at the highest level, God has the highest degree of truth in God's being or existence and most greatly, maxime, another key term that plays a role in here. And so by the end of chapter three, we're getting a little bit of a puzzle. He says, well, we started out by saying from, taking this from Asalm, the fool says in his heart there is no God, but it's so evident to the rational mind that you among all beings exist most greatly. And he concludes by saying, well, why indeed except that he is a fool and stupid, stultus et incipiens, right? That's not really an explanation though. Oh, he's just a stupid person. Well, how is he a stupid person? And that's where we get to chapter four. How can the fool seemingly do something impossible? How can the fool on the one hand say in his heart, which means to think that God does not exist and yet at the same time any rational being must see that God necessarily exists? How can the fool do this? So Asalm says, well, here's where we can make an important distinction. He says that there must be more than one way in which something is said in one's heart or thought, or if we want to be a little bit more literal, there's not only one sense unomodo in which something is said to be in one's heart or thought. So saying that something is in our thought is equivocal. It can mean at least two things. And Asalm only talks about two here in part because that's all he really needs for this explanation. So in one sense of saying in our heart or thinking, we think the word the vokes that signifies the thing. Now the thing is race or rem and that can mean anything. It's very generic term, right? It doesn't only mean a material thing. God strictly speaking isn't a thing like other things, but as a cognition, sure that that's fine. So kum vokes, am significance. So when we are thinking about the word, the signifier rather than the signified, the thing itself, then we're actually able to say God doesn't exist because we're not signifying the thing itself. We're not thinking about God himself, right? He says, God can be thought not to exist in the first sense. We can certainly use language to say that, but if we're using the term in the other sense, understanding in telegitur, the thing is understood, what exactly the thing is, so not just a little bit having sort of a vague notion of it, but really comprehending it, id ipsum kod race est. That precisely what the thing is, what it's being is, in this sense, an ipsum says, well, you can't actually deny God's existence. You can't even coherently think God's non-existence in this case. And so he gives sort of a recap. For God is that, then which a greater cannot be thought, whoever understands this properly, understands that this being exists in such a way or has being in such a way, that he cannot even in thought fail to exist. So whoever understands that God exists in this way cannot think that he does not exist. So what is Anselm saying here? Just to sort of bring it to a close. If you've got a vague sense of what God is, okay, you can deny God's existence. You can think God's non-existence. If you actually understand what God is, well, at least to the degree that we human beings are capable of, then you can't even think the non-existence or the non-being of God. And he's going to conclude this chapter in a really interesting way. And it's up to you to decide whether you think this has any philosophical implications or not. So he says, thanks be to you, God, this is a prayer, for what I once believed through your grace or quite literally here, what I believed cradidi by you, giving it to me, Tae donante. Now I understand it how through you illuminate. So there's this sense that God is casting light in an important way within the mind of the person. Yam sik intalego, Tae illuminante. And then he says something really even more interesting. He has to do with the will. Even if I not only was unwilling, but willed against believing that you exist, I would still not be able to not understand, Intelligere that you do exist. So even with the wilfulness, the stubbornness of the fool, if the fool actually was thinking straight, the fool would see that God must exist. So we get another, if you wanna call it an ontological argument, you go on ahead, we don't necessarily need to, we can just call it another argument and some is providing for the existence or the being, the essay of God. - Special thanks to all of my Patreon supporters for making this podcast possible. You can find me on Twitter at philosopher70 on YouTube at the Gregory B. Sadler channel and on Facebook on the Gregory B. Sadler page. Once again, to support my work, go to patreon.com/sadler. Above all, keep studying these great philosophical works. (gentle music) (gentle music) (gentle music) (gentle music)