David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:199-208 (2009)
Throughout Anselm’s writings one can trace what seems to be a paradoxical inconsistency in his treatment of reason (ratio), understanding (intelligere) andthought (cogitare). The Monologion begins by proposing that even an unbeliever can convince himself of truths about God, “simply by reason alone,” while in theProslogion Anselm claims, to the contrary, “I believe so that I may understand.” Much of this confusion can be resolved by clarifying Anselm’s distinctions betweenreason, understanding and thought. Thought follows reason, but reason can surpass understanding; one need not understand a conclusion reached through reason. Ultimately, one must understand what God is—‘that-than-which-a-greater-cannotbe-thought’—in order to prove through reason that one cannot think of God as non-existent, but the deeper understanding that God exists must come, not from reason, but through God’s illumination of one’s soul
|Keywords||Catholic Tradition Conference Proceedings History of Philosophy Philosophy and Religion|
|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
Michael J. O'Neill (2006). A Peculiar “Faith”: On R.G. Collingwood's Use of Saint Anselm's Argument. Saint Anselm Journal 3 (2):32-47.
Eric Entrican Wilson (2010). The Ontological Argument Revisited: A Reply to Rowe. Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 15 (1):37 - 44.
Georges Dicker (1988). A Refutation of Rowe's Critique of Anselm's Ontological Argument. Faith and Philosophy 5 (2):193-202.
Mark Owen Webb (2005). In Defense of Anselm. Philo 8 (1):55-58.
Ian Logan (2008). Reading Anselm's Proslogion: The History of Anselm's Argument and its Significance Today. Ashgate.
William E. Mann (2004). Anselm on the Trinity. In The Cambridge Companion to Anselm. Cambridge University Press.
R. Michael Perry (2009). God Versus the Multiverse: An Ontological Argument Against the Existence of a Supreme Being: With a Hopeful Alternative. In Death and Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine Hundred Years After St. Anselm (1033-1109). Ria University Press.
Mary Sirridge (2007). “Utrum Idem Sint Dicere Et Intelligere Sive Videre in Mente”: Robert Kilwardby, Quaestiones in Librum Primum Sententiarum. Vivarium 45 (s 2-3):253-268.
Gary Mar (1996). The Modal Unity of Anselm's Proslogion. Faith and Philosophy 13 (1):50-67.
Hugh S. Chandler (1993). Some Ontological Arguments. Faith and Philosophy 10 (1):18-32.
Oded Balaban & Asnat Avshalom (1990). The Ontological Argument Reconsidered. Journal of Philosophical Research 15:279-310.
Added to index2011-12-01
Total downloads102 ( #45,557 of 1,925,262 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #418,201 of 1,925,262 )
How can I increase my downloads?