MYTUTOR SUBJECT ANSWERS

402 views

Critically Analyse Anselm’s First Ontological Argument

Anselm offers a reduction ad absurdum argument. This is an argument whose denial leads to a contradiction or some other absurdity.

Anselm’s Argument from Proslogian 2 is as follows:
Premise 1: Firstly, we must consider what God is said to be like. Anselm says that “we believe” God to be “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”. In other words, God is the greatest thing that a person can think of.

Premise 2: Even a fool “understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his intellect”. There, Anselm means that even the non-believer has the idea of God as the greatest conceivable being. They must do in order to argue against his existence.

Premise 3: From this, Anselm argues that God does exist, if even in the intellect (in intellectu) of a believer or non-believer.

Premise 4: Anselm then argues that it is greater to exist in both the understanding and reality, than merely in the understanding.

Premise 5: The greatest conceivable being must exist in both the understanding and reality if it is to truly be the greatest.

Premise 6: Therefore, God exists in both reality and in the understanding.

Gaunilo’s Criticism

In his work “On Behalf of the Fool”, Gaunilo suggests that using Anselm’s method, we could deduce anything we want into existence, so long as it has superlative qualities such as being the “greatest” or “most excellent”. Gaunilo states:
 

“For example: it is said somewhere in the ocean is an island … And they say that this island has an inestimable wealth … it is more excellent than all other countries … Now if someone should tell that there is such an island, I should easily understanding his words … But suppose that he went on to say … ‘Since it is more excellent not to be in the understanding alone, but to exist both in the understanding and in reality’, for this reason [the island] must exist.”

In other words:
* We can imagine an island which is the greatest conceivable island.

* It is greater to exist in reality than just in the understanding.

* Therefore, the greatest conceivable island must exist in reality.

Plantinga’s Counter Criticism

An issue arises when we consider the subjects being used by Gaunilo and Anselm. Gaunilo’s example of an island is flawed, as it is a subject that can always be improved upon. However, the subject of God is one that by definition cannot be. Plantinga argues that Gaunilo’s argument only works if we use an idea that has a definite condition of perfection, and because Gaunilo’s island can forever be improved, “the idea of a greatest possible island is an inconsistent idea; it is not possible that there be such a thing.”

Further Reading & Next Steps:

Davies’ Orchid Counter Criticism

Anselm’s Second Ontological Argument (Proslogian 3)

Descartes’ Ontological Argument

Plantinga’s Ontological Argument

Kant’s Criticisms

Russel’s Criticisms

Patrick S. A Level Philosophy tutor, GCSE Philosophy tutor, A Level P...

7 months ago

Answered by Patrick, an A Level Philosophy tutor with MyTutor


Still stuck? Get one-to-one help from a personally interviewed subject specialist

21 SUBJECT SPECIALISTS

Henry D. GCSE Philosophy tutor, GCSE Spanish tutor, 13 Plus  Spanish ...
£20 /hr

Henry D.

Degree: Philosophy (Bachelors) - Edinburgh University

Subjects offered:Philosophy, Spanish+ 2 more

Philosophy
Spanish
Latin
French

“I aim to provide a bespoke tutoring experience making for fun and interesting tutorials that help students reach their full potential.”

£20 /hr

Hamish L.

Degree: Philosophy (Masters) - Edinburgh University

Subjects offered:Philosophy

Philosophy

“British 22 year old postgraduate student currently studying at The University of Edinburgh. ”

MyTutor guarantee

£30 /hr

Flaminia I.

Degree: International Relations and Political Theory (Doctorate) - St. Andrews University

Subjects offered:Philosophy, Spanish+ 4 more

Philosophy
Spanish
Politics
Philosophy and Ethics
Italian
-Personal Statements-

“Hello! I am an MLitt Philosophy student at the University of St. Andrews and I fell in love with philosophy in the first year of IB. I am delighted to help with political philsophy, ethics, moral philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, ...”

About the author

£20 /hr

Patrick S.

Degree: Philosophy (Bachelors) - Bristol University

Subjects offered:Philosophy, Philosophy and Ethics+ 1 more

Philosophy
Philosophy and Ethics
English Literature

“Having grown up around numerous teachers, I have always had a natural comfort in teaching environments. As a result, it is not surprising that teaching is my long term goal with my degree, or that I have spent much of my time accumula...”

MyTutor guarantee

You may also like...

Posts by Patrick

Critically Analyse Anselm’s First Ontological Argument

Explain Hume’s Argument Against Miracles

Explain Joseph Fletcher’s Approach to Ethics

Explain Paley’s Teleological Argument

Other A Level Philosophy questions

What is the divisibility argument for substance dualism?

Explain Paley’s Teleological Argument

Outline the main threads of thought in Preformatism.

Why is the "No False Lemmas" approach an inadequate repair to the JTB account of knowledge?

View A Level Philosophy tutors

We use cookies to improve your site experience. By continuing to use this website, we'll assume that you're OK with this. Dismiss

mtw:mercury1:status:ok