Existential Import in Anselm's Ontological Argument

EXISTENTIAL IMPORT IN ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT* The ontological argument of Saint Anselm has attracted a great deal of attention. There has been considerable discussion of whether the argument begs the question, by assuming the existence of God in the premises of the argument. But, although the theological, Augustinian context of Anselm's argument has been dealt with, and although the argument has been extensively treated in modern logical terms, little attention has been paid to how the argument fares in terms of traditional logic. In this article I shall analyze the argument of Proslogion 2 in traditional terms. I shall then argue that to a great extent the debate between Anselm and Gaunilon can be viewed as depending on attitudes toward the Aristotelian syllogistic.1 In short, the standard for the vaUdity and soundness of arguments in medieval philosophy was the syllogistic. It was apparently assumed that all terms used in the syllogistic have existential import. So Anselm's argument is suspect in that it employs a term, 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived,' which cannot be assumed to have existential import. I then shall offer a solution of this difficulty. I shall argue that the success of the argument of Proslogion 2 depends on the modal character of 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived.' That modal character suggests that the argument of Proslogion 2 is modal as well. I shall show that there are grounds in theology and in the Aristotelian modal syllogistic for rejecting the existential import assumption, and shall suggest that Anselm does * I wish to thank Louis Mackey, Al Martinich, and Eleonore Stump, for their comments. 1 I do not mean to suggest that Anselm had a complete Aristotelian syllogistic to use. However, I do claim that he had certain elements of that syllogistic at his disposal, viz., the conversion of A, E, I, and O propositions and the basic forms of Barbara, modus ponens, and modus tollens. Cf. Desmond Paul Henry, The Logic of Saint Anselm (London, 1967), p. 7 & pp. 240-42. In any case, my project here is simply to analyze the argument in terms of Aristotelian logic. 7 - Franciscan Studies 1981 98ALLAN BACK not make such an assumption, at least in the ontological argument. Rather, despite its assertoric appearance, the argument in Proslogion 2 is modal. I I shall begin by giving a syllogistic representation of the argument in Proslogion 2:2 (I)Everything that is understood (intelligitur) is existent in the intellect (est in intellectu) That than which nothing greater can be conceived (aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit) is understood Therefore, that than which nothing greater can be conceived in existent in the intellect (II)If that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the intellect alone, then that than which nothing greater can be conceived is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived It is not the case that that than which nothing greater can be conceived is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived Therefore, that than which nothing greater can be conceived does not exist in the intellect alone (III)Whatever does not exist in the intellect alone, exists in the intellect and in re (IV)Therefore, that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the intellect and in re (V)God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (VI)Therefore, God exists in the intellect and in re I shall not be concerned with V and VI. The main problem there concerns the truth and logical form of V. 8 Arthur McGiIl, "Recent Discussions of Anselm's Argument," in The Many-Faced Argument, ed. Hick & McGiIl (New York, 1967), p. 39, speaks of syllogisms in Proslogion 2, but never puts the argument into syllogistic form. Jonathan Barnes, in The Ontological Argument (London, 1972), pp. 4-5, gives a syllogistical analysis for the conclusion 'God exists,' but does not empha size the syllogistical structure with Proslogion 2. The simplicity of the formulation that I give fits in well with how Anselm views the Proslogion: "...reflecting that this (Monologion) was made up of a connected chain of many arguments, I began to wonder if...