FREE ESSAY ON ANSELM

ANSELM

Not every great writer can be correct in what he or she is saying. This is the idea that
Gaunilo had in mind when he wrote his criticism to St. Anselm's Ontological Argument
which states that if something greater than anything else that could be thought of is
conceived in the understanding then it must exist. Gaunilo says it is foolish to believe
in the existence of something just because it is understood. He says there must be some
kind of other explanation. In this paper, I will try to explain both Anselm's theory and
Gaunilo's argument by first breaking each of them down in simpler terms. I will attempt
to show what Gaunilo is trying to discredit with his objection.
One of St. Anselm's theological topics deals with the Ontological Argument in which
discusses the idea of existence. He gives a definition of God as "that than which nothing
greater can be conceived" (69). His idea being that God is the ultimate being or "the
greatest possible being" (68). He says there is nothing anyone can possibly imagine that
could be better than Him. This argument gives God the highest human qualities possible.
He is omnipotent as well as omniscient. Anselm suggests that there is no one or nothing
in this world that is greater than God is (69). This perfection that God possesses leads
into the fact that He must exist. He is trying to create the idea that God exists and
nothing can be better than he can be. However, one must ask where Anselm gets his proof.
What evidence does he have to back up his argument? 
If nothing greater than God can be conceived in anyone's understanding, God is said to be
humanly perfect. Since to be perfect, in part, is to exist; something that does not exist
cannot be perfect. Something that exists has to be better than something that does not
exist simply because it is here. If a child imagines the greatest toy he can think of and
then is able to play with it, it has to be better than just the image of the toy in the
child's mind. He can feel it and hold it and play with this perfect thing that nothing,
in his eyes, can beat. He says it is perfect and part of that perfection comes from the
fact that he can play with his creation. If God is perfect in human terms then he must
exist, because if he did not then one can imagine something greater that does. What
Anselm is saying is that God is perfect, to be perfect is to exist; therefore, God
exists. 
Anselm uses an analogy of a fool to try and display what is meant by his idea. First, he
says, "Truly there is a God, although the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God"
(68). The fool is questioning whether or not God exists. He understands what God is, and
he knows that God is the greatest being that can be conceived. He understands that this
being known as God possesses every human perfection possible. This then, puts God into
his understanding or rather, into his mind just as the toy was in the mind of the child.
However, the fool cannot understand God to exist. He knows what the greatest being is; he
just cannot see that being in front of him. He does not understand that something can
exist in reality without being a concrete item or being. He cannot touch God or talk to
or listen to God. He can only see God in his mind, so he is confused as to whether God
really exists in the world (69). If the boy can see the toy in his mind and yet cannot
touch and play with the toy, he is going to have a tough time trying to understand that
the toy really does exist. Anselm also tells the story of the painter in which he is
explaining the same idea. He says a painter who has an idea of a picture understands it
to exist in his understanding or in his mind. He does not understand it to exist in the
world because he has not yet painted it. After he paints the picture and puts his idea
onto the canvas, he can understand it both in his mind and in reality because it is in
front of him. The painter can touch the painting and pick it up or move it (69). In the
child's case, if he is presented with the toy, he can understand it in the world and in
his understanding. He can picture it, and he can touch it. Returning to the fool, he can
see God in his understanding or imagine Him in his mind, but cannot understand God to
exist because he has never seen Him in person. He was never able to look directly at God
or touch Him or talk to Him. Hence, he questions the existence of such a being. How can
this being exist if I have never seen it? Anselm's story about the painter attempts to
explain the difference between an existence in the mind and an existence in reality.
There are two ideas of the existence of the painting and the toy, just as there are two
ideas of the existence of God, one in the understanding and one in the world. The
painter, the child and the fool have difficulty grasping the idea of the first concept.
Gaunilo introduces a short objection to Anselm's argument. He uses an analogy of a
perfect island to explain his idea. He describes a perfect island in the middle of the
ocean that remains undiscovered. One of the attributes that makes this island perfect is
that it is uninhabited. He says that this "lost island" contains more wealth and riches
"than is told of the Islands of the Blest," another attribute of perfection. He says that
since the island is not owned by anyone or inhabited by anyone then it is greater than
any other place that can be imagined (70). The island in this case is representing God.
By definition, God's perfection came from the idea the He existed. Similarly, by
definition, the island's perfection came from the idea that it is undiscovered. Gaunilo
says that if a person told him this, he can understand their words because it is easy to
imagine this place. Just as the boy could imagine the toy, he could imagine the island.
He says it would be ridiculous to suppose since he has this idea in his understanding, it
exists (70). He is saying that just because the boy thought of the idea in his mind does
not mean that the toy is actually in reality. Simply because the boy thinks the toy would
be better if he was actually able to play with it does not mean that he is able to have
it. Gaunilo contradicts Anselm when he describes his island. The island is defined as the
greatest undiscovered place that can be imagined. If you claimed that you know that this
place did exist then you have been there, you have discovered the island. Therefore this
island is not the greatest thing imaginable because you discovered it. 
Gaunilo is not saying that God does not exist because someone has seen Him. He is saying
that a person cannot come to the conclusion that God exists through Anselm's argument. He
brings up the idea that Anselm's is an impossible argument. The idea of something
existing just because you believe it or conceive it to is ridiculous to Gaunilo. Anyone
can think of something they want to imagine and say that since it is said to be perfect
then it exists somewhere in this world. To Gaunilo, Anselm's idea consists of a great
deal of wishful thinking. There has to be more concrete evidence to back up the argument
for it to be believed. 
God's existence remains a question to many. All sorts of people have an opinion. Whether
or not you agree with Anselm's approach on the existence of God does not mean you doubt
that He really does exist. If you disagree with his method, like Gaunilo, you simply want
more accurate evidence to support the idea. God, like your island or toy, is not just
there because you wished it to be or because it would be better and more perfect if these
things did exist. If you agree with his method, you understand that you do not always
have to touch everything you conceive of in your mind. Things in life exist for a reason.
The question remains: whose reason are you going to believe?
Bibliography
Bibliography
? Gaunilo. "Gaunilo's Criticism." Philosophy The Quest for Truth Louis P. Pojman ed.:
Wadsworth Publishing Company. USA. 1999: 70.
? St. Anselm. "St. Anselm's Presentation." Philosophy The Quest for Truth Louis P. Pojman
ed.: Wadsworth Publishing Company. USA. 1999: 68-69.