That Anselm’s God Exists and Gaunilo’s Island Does Not

Richard Campbell*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Scholars were greatly indebted to Max Charlesworth for publishing in 1965 the Latin text of Anselm’s Proslogion, together with his own translation and commentary. The intense discussion this argument has received since then has, however, clarified a number of points about the logic of this argument. Its first premise is not a definition of God, and that identification is one of the conclusions of a three-stage argument. Also, the much-discussed issue of the relation of Chap. 3 to Chap. 2 has now been clarified: that the premise with which Anselm begins Chap. 3 is entailed by the conclusion of Chap. 2. For that reason, substituting a description of anything other than God for Anselm’s formula, such as Gaunilo’s Lost Island, entails that that thing both can and could not be thought not to exist. So, no such substitution is legitimate.

    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationSophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures
    PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media B.V.
    Pages115-137
    Number of pages23
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2019

    Publication series

    NameSophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures
    Volume30
    ISSN (Print)2211-1107
    ISSN (Electronic)2211-1115

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'That Anselm’s God Exists and Gaunilo’s Island Does Not'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this