Anselm on Perfect Islands

ANSELM ON PERFECT ISLANDS Gaunilon's objection of the Lost, or Perfect, Island to Anselm's argument in Proslogion 2 has its modern sympathizers. Many today think that it brings out elegantly the absurdities consequent upon treating 'existence' as a predicate. Yet Anselm himself dismisses this objection rather contemptuously. In this paper I wish to examine closely his defense against the "perfect island" objection. After sketching out the argument in Proslogion 2, I shall state the objection. I then shall point out that there are several ways to understand it: on some readings, Anselm is obviously correct that the objection does not succeed, whereas on another, there appear to be strong grounds for suspecting that the objection does work out. Yet I shall claim next that Anselm does indeed provide a reply to the objection, even in this strong form. I shall end by evaluating his rejoinder and by making some remarks about his ontology. I. In order to be able to evaluate the Perfect Island objection more precisely, let me schematize the argument of Proslogion 2:1 1 This formulation of the argument is argued for in Allan Back, "Existential Import in Anselm's Ontological Argument," Franciscan Studies Vol. 41, Annual XIX (1981), pp. 98-101. It differs from the formulation given in William E. Mann, "The Ontological Presuppositions of the Ontological Argument," Review of Metaphysics XXVI.2 (1972), pp 266-7. The former formulation will enable me to give a stronger version of the perfect island objection than Mann is able to do in "The Perfect Island," Mind LXXXV. 339 (1976), p. 420. The disagreement centers about his step (6). Cf. Jasper Hopkins, Anselm of Canterbury, Vol. IV (Toronto, 1976), p. 115. Robert M. Adams, in "The Logical Structure of Anselm's Arguments," Philosophical Review Vol. LXXX (1971), pp. 31-5, has a much more complicated formulation of Anselm's argument and Gaunilon's objection. These formulations look too complicated to suit Anselm, who was looking for a simple argument, Anselm on Perfect Islands189 Let 'T' be 'that than which nothing greater can be thought' ?. T is understood (premise) 2.What is understood is in the understanding (premise) 3.T is (exists) in the understanding (1, 2) 4.T exists in the understanding and not in reality, or T exists in the understanding and in reality (3) Lemma: a. T exists in the understanding and not in reality (premise) b.Let T* be 'that than which nothing greater can be thought, that exists in reality'—i.e., T with the addition that it exists in reality (definition) c.T* is greater than T (b; definition of 'greater than') d.T is not T (c; definition of 'T') 5.If T exists in the understanding and not in reality, T is not T (a-d; conditional proof) 6.Not: T is not T (tautology) 7.Not: T exists in the understanding and not in reality (5, 6) 8.T exists in the understanding and in reality (4, 7). This schematization follows the text closely. Proslogion 2 gives an argument consisting of a categorical syllogism in Barbara (1-3), a hypothetical syllogism in modus tollens (5-7), and an auxiliary argument for the major premise of the hypothetical syllogism (a-d).2 I shall use this schematization in trying to pin down how the term, and depart too much from the text to be useful here. Again, Adams claims, p. 40, that Anselm gives new proofs in his Reply, but I once more shall take the simpler route, that Anselm is explaining his original argument, as he suggests. 2 In Proslogion 2, the texts supporting this tripartite reconstruction are, respectively, "...quia hoc cum audit intelligit, et quidquid intelligitur in intellectu est"; "si enim vel in solo intellectu est, potest cogitari esse et in re, quod maius est... Sed certe hoc esse non potest"; "si ergo id quo maius cogitari non potest, est in solo intellectu: id ipsum quo maius cogitari non potest, est quo maius cogitari potest"; St. Anselm's Proslogion, ed. Charlesworth (Oxford, 1965), p. 116; Opera Omnia, ed. F. S. Schmitt (Stuttgart, 1968), Vol. I, 101, 14-102, 3. I shall use Charlesworth's translation. Alvin Plantinga, God...