A Summary on Gaunilo’s Response to Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Title: A Summary on
Gaunilo’s Response to Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Date: 19th
March, 2013.
The ontological argument is,
roughly, the argument that God, being that than which no greater can be
conceived, must exist, for if he did not then it would be possible to conceive
of an existent God, which would be greater than that than which no greater can
be conceived, which is absurd.
The earliest critic of the ontological
argument was a contemporary of Anselm’s, the monk Gaunilo of Marmoutier.
Gaunilo did not identify any specific fault with the argument, but argued that
there must be something wrong with it, because if there is not then we can use
its logic to prove things that we have no reason to believe to be true.
Gaunilo is unconvinced by
Anselm's Ontological Proof and offers several counter-arguments. One of these
counter-arguments concerns Anselm's claim that there are two ways in which a
thing can exist, solely in the mind and outside the mind. Specifically, Gaunilo
questions whether the analogy Anselm draws between a painting and other objects
is accurate. He points out that an artist's work, before the artist actually
begins painting, sculpting, or building, "belongs to the very nature of
the mind itself" whereas other sorts of things are distinct from "the
understanding that grasps" them.
Gaunilo's point is that art is inextricably
tied to the mind that creates it; intent to create is a necessary condition for
art. In contrast, other things exist independently of the mind; the mind is not
necessary for them to exist at all. Thus, while there is a sense in which an
object of art exists in the mind and a sense in which that same work of art
exists in the mind of the artist, there is no parallel for things that exist
independently of the mind. Where the existence of something is independent of
mind, Gaunilo argues, the understanding of that thing is a distinct entity from
that thing itself.
Gaunilo argued that, it is
possible to construct an argument with exactly the same form as the ontological
argument, that purports to prove the existence of the perfect island: the
perfect island must exist, for if it did not then it would be possible to
conceive of an island greater than that island than which no greater can be
conceived, which is absurd. If the ontological argument works, then, according
to Gaunilo, the argument for the existence of the perfect island works too.
Anselm responded to Gaunilo as
thus: “Whatever can be thought of yet does not exist, even if it should come
into existence, would not be "a being greater than which cannot be thought
of." Thus "a being greater than which cannot be thought of"
would not be "a being greater than which cannot be thought of," which
is absurd. Thus if "a being greater than which cannot be thought of"
can even be thought of, it is false to say that it does not exist; and it is
even more false if such can be understood and exist in the understanding”.
Comments
Post a Comment