BASA

Anselm's debate with Gaunilo 49 7. Relation between Proslogion 2 and the Repl y. There is, of course, a relationship between the argument of Proslogion 2 and the three arguments of Reply 1. But we must be careful about specifying this relationship. In Proslogion 2 Anselm's proof runs: 49 (1) We properly conceive of God as N (premise). (2) We understand what the words « N » describe (premise). (3) Whatever is understood is in the understanding (premise). Bence, (4) N exists in the understanding (2) (3). (5) Either N exists in the understanding without ex1stmg in reality or else N exists both in the understanding and in reality (premise). Assume: (6) N exists in the understanding without existing in reality. (a) N can be thought to exist in reality. (b) For N, existing in the understanding and in reality is greater than existing only in the understanding. Bence, (c) N can be thought to be greater than it is (and so N is that than which a greater can be thought) (impossible). So, (7) N exists both in the understanding and in reality (4) (5) (6) (c). In this formulation (1) is an a priori description, (2) is a fact, and (6,b) is a presupposition. Now, both the main assumption in (6) and the steps (6,a & b) are elicited from Anselm's statement: (S): For if it [N] were merely in the understanding, it could be thought to exist also in reality-which is greater. The most natural interpretation of this sentence is to construe « which is greater » as indicating that N would be greater if it 49 « So even the Pool is convinced that something than which nothing greater can be thought exists at least in his understanding; for when he hears of this being, he understands [what he hears], and whatever is understood is in the understanding. But surely that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot be only in the understanding. For if it were only in the understanding, it could be thought to exist also in reality - which is greater [than existing only in the understand– ing]. Therefore, if that than which a greater cannot be thought existed only in the understanding, then that than which a greater cannot be thought would be that than which a greater can be thought! But surely this conclusion is impossible. Hence, without doubt, something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the understanding and in reality ».