Anselm's Proslogion | Ontological Argument for God's Existence | Philosophy Core Concepts

hi this is dr. Gregory Sadler I'm a professor of philosophy and the president and founder of an educational consulting company called reason IO where we put philosophy into practice I've studied and taught philosophy for over 20 years and I find that many people run into difficulties reading classic philosophical texts sometimes it's the way things are said or how the text is structured but the concepts themselves are not always that complicated and that's where I come in to help students and lifelong learners I've been producing longer lecture videos and posting them to youtube many viewers say they find them useful what you're currently watching is part of a new series of shorter videos each of them focused on one core concept from an important philosophical text I hope you find it useful as well st. Anselm of Canterbury is best known for one main idea or rather line of argumentation often called the ontological argument found in prose loggia and chapter two at the very least some people want to say that it continues all the way to chapter four other people claim to find multiple ontological arguments in that short section we don't need to get into that here and I will say that this line of argumentation was not called ontological argument by an Psalm in his own time even in the Middle Ages even in the early modern period it waits until the 18th century but then it takes on a life of its own and there are varieties of ontological arguments and Psalms argument that he provides in Chapter two is not the same as the ontological argument as we find it in the Cartesian tradition whether in Rene Descartes or in Benedict Spinoza or other thinkers and it's not the same thing as some of the modern and late modern reconstructions of the argument by people like Charles Hartshorn or Norman Malcolm or any of the contemporary people who like to talk about perfect being theology or anything like that we should look very carefully at what Ansem himself actually does because his version of if you want to call it an ontological argument go ahead is quite striking because of its starting point and the fact that as he tells Gunilla I am NOT using a definition of God as the starting point for this as many people took him to be doing so what is this argument in chapters 2 through 4 and some is going to prove as you see from the chapter titles that God exists or is that God truly is he declared this intention in what the order of arguments on the larger argument of the prosto Gyan is supposed to be doing the single argument that proves that God exists that God is the good all other goods need and everything else that we believe about God in chapter 3 he argues further that strictly speaking God cannot even consistently be thought not to exist and he ends that chapter actually by affirming a rather traditional we could call it plate misconception where God possesses being to the greatest extent more than any other being so not only does God exist God is the greatest being and God is beyond the being of other types of beings we don't need to worry so much about that for the structure in chapter 2 which is what we're going to focus on here because that's what most people and most commentators tend to look at now the real linchpin of this comes through a Latin phrase and Ansem doesn't always use exactly the same formulation but this is the general way that he talks about it he calls God quo Myers Kogut re known potest sometimes they'll say known volley at or other things as well Coney Hill my Coney Hill cocoa powder you meiosis protest things like that but the general idea is this that van which there's a comparative term right my use that then which nothing greater or that then which a greater cannot potest known protests here be thought to exist so whatever you're thinking of God is greater than that because God is sort of at the apex of things and so this is in in some respects a difficult phrase to wrap your head around vision well what are you saying that then which nothing greater can be thought and notice that it this can be thought is really central to it it doesn't just say that which is at the top of everything that which is greater than anything else that then which nothing greater can be thought so it depends on having thinking things ie rational beings like us so he begins chapter two by saying God you know help me to understand that you are that you are as we think that you are because you do have these people and the Bible talks about the fool saying in his heart there is no God and he says this not just with his lips not just aloud but in his heart he thinks that there is no God and the fool in the biblical sense is somebody who could be within the church could be within the the you know religious community but they behave in such a way that they demonstrate that they think there is no God because they think there's gonna be no divine you know punishment for behaving badly or a reward for doing things well and you know they're they're affirming a kind of practical atheism now an some is not so much worried about the behavior at this point he's worried about is this a coherent thought there is no God we know we can say it right I'm gonna say it all we want there is no God there is no God we could make a little song of it if we - but is it coherent to affirm that really depends on what we mean by God now if the fool understands God in a sort of cartoonish way as this you know bearded guy up in the sky who throws down lightning bolts maybe there is no God maybe that's all BS and maybe the fool is right about that but if we understand God in a different sense if we understand God as that then which nothing greater can be thought there's a question about whether that can be said not to exist so Anselm says this the fool hears this phrase and we're going to call it Q quo Maya's kogatana don't post it right the The Fool here's Anselm or whoever saying God is that then which nothing greater can can be thought right and or that that then which a greater cannot be thought so he hears that now the question is does he registered if he does register it if he hears it and it's in his understanding then Q exists in his understanding and and the fool is perfectly fine with saying that because the fool could say yeah I know exactly what I'm affirming does not exist this is wonderful you've clarified for me what I think God who doesn't exist would be like if God did happen to exist and handsome uses the example of somebody who is like a painter maybe the idea of God is like the idea of a painting he says what a painter thinks out in advance what he's going to paint he has it in his understanding he has it in his mind in intellect him but he does not yet understand he doesn't think that it exists because he's not yet painted it and as a matter of fact he knows that it doesn't exist because he hasn't painted it right so maybe it's like that so he says even the fool must admit that something then which nothing greater can be thought exist at least in his understanding because he understands this until you get her a right from Intel lactam right he understands this when he hears it and whatever his understood exists in the understanding so he's got the fool now admitting yes okay I get that cue exists somewhere now the question is does it exist just in the understanding and here is this important distinction between being SN alright in ant elect them being in the understanding versus being in reality esse in ray existing in the world reality whatever in ray is as opposed to the understanding you could say that what Anselm has in mind here is whatever is not just thought of whatever is not just imaginary or being conceptualized but something that has real being so we have a distinction between two different kinds of being one is greater and one is lesser now here's where the argument really takes a turn if that van which nothing greater can be thought exists only in the understanding if this is something that we say and we hear and we we grasp it but it doesn't correspond to anything in reality if it exists only at the understanding not in reality then we can think of something greater we can think of something greater than Q namely something that does exist in the understanding or the mind and does exist in reality now that produces a problem doesn't it because what that means is that that than which nothing greater can be thought is also at the same time something than which something else greater can be thought so it winds up having contradictory properties as a matter of fact precisely what we have taken God is being would have to be it's opposite God is that then which nothing greater can be thought and God is something that a greater can be thought in relation to so Anselm himself itself says well that cannot be the case as a matter of fact the language here is very interesting and very telling he says said character Hoke s enone potest so he's still using this known potest language right that can't be there is no possibility of that so what this means is that Q that then which nothing greater can be thought exists both in the intellect and in reality and since Q is God that means that God no longer or never did exist just in the intellect but also exists in reality this is the conclusion of chapter two and I just want to point out one thing here he doesn't he doesn't keep using this term asked from essa being is the very last line is existent in or GoPro called do Bo so existed a is being used in an intensive way to connote a greater degree of being than simply existing in the mind or perhaps even the essay in in ray and in the next chapter as I put it out chapter three and some is actually going to conclude that one by saying that God of all things possesses existence to the highest degree right and or maxime a omnium habis esta you have being the most in a way what he's saying here and this is why you know if we want to think of this as an argument for the existence of God it's a little bit of a strange argument it's not just that Anselm was already addressing God so he already believes God exists that God or has being or something like that it's also that this is supposed to show us how God is that God's being is in some way necessary and that strictly speaking it's not even conceivable in a again in a strict sense that God wouldn't exist so you can wrap your head around that and think that through this is I should point out an argument that anthem himself or a portion of an argument rather that anthem himself had to struggle with quite a bit so it may not be immediately apparent and it may strike you as being kind of a sophism and some himself is convinced that it is a good line of argumentation whether you think it is or not whether you think there are fatal flaws with it you have to work through it and discern it and as I often suggest in comments there is no substitute for reading the text and so especially with a tricky argument like this you really want to read the an some not just look at the summary on a chalkboard or in a video or podcast lecturer or something like that that you want to try to think this through can that then which nothing greater can be thought exists only in our minds where we know that it does exist or does it have to exist also in reality upon pain of that reality itself being contradictory if it doesn't there's a question to ponder you

Channel: Gregory B. Sadler

Views: 4,827

Rating: 4.9694657 out of 5

Keywords: Lecture, Lesson, Talk, Education, Sadler, Philosophy, Learning, Reason

Id: 5anRZ9N-f3w

Length: 15min 14sec (914 seconds)

Published: Fri Feb 01 2019