BASA

Anselm's debate with Gaunilo 37 Hick and McGill do not even bring these two sections together, let alone put them at the beginning! Then too, Hick and McGill take Section 2 of Gaunilo's work and <livide it in such way as to dissipate the strength of his reasoning. That is, we have noted previously how Gaunilo urges that three consequences would follow if Anselm were to conflate « understand– ing » with « understanding to exist » in the case of understanding N. Now, Hick and McGill simply elide the second consequence and move it elsewhere in order to mesh it conveniently with a section of Anselm's response 24 which, on their method, they have to do something with. This elision weakens the force of Gaunilo's reason– ing and is editorially problematical. By their dubious method Hick and McGill betray that, like Anselm, they too have difficulty following Gaunilo's argument. 3. Intelligere and intellectus. It is necessary now to clarify Anselm's use of intelligere and intellectus. According to McGill there is « little evidence that the word intellectus ever suggested to Anselm, as it does to us, an organ (such as the mind) or a faculty (such as the intellect). It was chiefly the noun form of the verb intelligere and signified the act of understanding ». 25 Yet, it seems to me that Anselm has four different uses of intellectus: to indicate (1) an act of understanding, (2) a capability, power, or faculty of the soul; and to indicate (3) intelligence, and (4) a respect. The first two distinctions occur in Reply to Gaunilo 2 (SI, 132:19-20): «What is understood [intelligitur: act of under– standing] is understood by the understanding [ intellectu: a capability of the soul] and is thereby in the understanding [in intellectu: a manner of speaking which generally but not necessarily indicates for Anselm the act of understanding] ». Now, Anselm comments immediately beforehand: « What is thought is thought by thinking; and what is thought by thinking is thereby in our thinking ». Is he here suggesting that thought is a faculty, and if not then why should his very next statement be construed as indicating that understanding is a faculty?, it might be asked. For 24 See HrcK and McGrLL, 15-16. Here they present S I, 125: 14-126:4 and 126: 8-13. That is, thcy have elided 126:4-7 simply to suit themselves editorially. 25 HrcK and McGrLL, 4, n. 10.