David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. Indeed, we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God'" (Ps. 14:1, 53:1)? Certainly, however, that same fool, having heard what I just said, "something greater than which cannot be thought," understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that thing exists. For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it, he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus, even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore, something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Catherine Nolan (2009). Ratio, Intelligere, and Cogitare in Anselm's Ontological Argument. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:199-208.
Paul E. Oppenheimer & Edward N. Zalta (2007). O logice ontologického důkazu. Studia Neoaristotelica 4 (1):5-27.
Paul E. Oppenheimer & Edward N. Zalta (1991). On the Logic of the Ontological Argument. Philosophical Perspectives 5:509-529.
J. William Forgie (2008). Kant and Existence: Critique of Pure Reason A 600/B 628. Kant-Studien 99 (1):1-12.
Lynne Rudder Baker & Gareth Matthews (2010). Anselm's Argument Reconsidered. Review of Metaphysics 64 (1):31-54.
Marie Duží (2011). St. Anselm's Ontological Arguments. Polish Journal of Philosophy 5 (1):7-37.
Alan Watts (2003). Become What You Are. Shambhala.
Toivo J. Holopainen (2007). Anselm's Argumentum and the Early Medieval Theory of Argument. Vivarium 45 (1):1-29.
Oliver O'Donovan (1989). How Can Theology Be Moral? Journal of Religious Ethics 17 (2):81 - 94.
Christopher S. Hill (2006). Harman on Self Referential Thoughts. Philosophical Issues 16 (1):346-357.
Tony Roark (2003). Conceptual Closure in Anselm's Proof. History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (1):1-14.
Christopher Hughes (1998). Negative Existentials, Omniscience, and Cosmic Luck. Religious Studies 34 (4):375-401.
Christopher S. Hill (2005). Ow! The Paradox of Pain. In Pain: New Essays on its Nature and the Methodology of its Study. Cambridge Ma: Bradford Book/MIT Press
Einar Duenger Bohn (2012). Anselmian Theism and Indefinitely Extensible Perfection. Philosophical Quarterly 62 (249):671-683.
Added to index2010-09-16
Total downloads10 ( #365,918 of 2,159,646 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #459,263 of 2,159,646 )
How can I increase my downloads?