Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Existing by Convention

  • Kenneth G. Ferguson (a1)
Extract

Ever since the Proslogion was first circulated (c. 1077), critics have been bemused by St Anselm's brazen attempt to establish a matter of fact, namely, God's existence, from the simple analysis of a term or concept. Yet every critic who has proposed to ‘write the obituary’ of the Ontological Argument has found it to be remarkably resilient (cf. McGrath, 1990: 212). At the risk of adding to a record of failures, I want to venture a new method for attacking this durable argument. Neither the common version of Anselm's argument from Chapter II of the Proslogion nor the previously unrecognized modal version uncovered by Norman Malcolm from Pros, III (1960: 52) can possibly get under way without Anselm's celebrated assertion that

(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Abelson, R. (1961). Not necessarily. The Philosophical Review, LXX, 6784.
Adams, R. (1971). The logical structure of Anselm's argument. The Philosophical Review, LXXX, 2854.
Allen, R. (1961). The ontological argument. The Philosophical Review, LXX, 5666.
St, Anselm (1974). Proslogion in Anselm of Canterbury, vol. 1, ed. Hopkins, J. and Richardson, H.. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
Barnes, J. (1972). The Ontological Argument. London: Macmillan.
Descartes, R. (1983). Meditations on First Philosophy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Hartshorne, C. (1944). The formal validity and real significance of the ontological argument. The Philosophical Review, LXXX, 225–45.
Hartshorne, C. (1961). The logic of the ontological argument. The Journal of Philosophy, LVIII, 471–3.
Hartshorne, C. (1962). The Logic of Perfection. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
Heath, P. (1967). Concept in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 2. New York: Macmillan.
Kalish, D. et al. (1980). Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning. San Diego: Harcourt.
Kant, I. (1965). Critique of Pure Reason, ed. Smith, Norman Kemp. New York: St Martin's.
Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Malcolm, N. (1960). Anselm's ontological arguments. The Philosophical Review, LXIX, 4162.
Mill, J. (1936). A System of Logic. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
McGrath, P. (1990). The refutation of the ontological argument. The Philosophical Quarterly, XL, 195212.
Moore, G. (1899). The nature of judgment. Mind VIII, 176–93.
Plantinga, A. (1961). A valid ontological argument? The Philosophical Review, LXX, 93101.
Poincaré, H. (1929). The Foundations of Science. New York: The Science Press.
Roth, M. (1970). A note on Anselm's ontological argument. Mind, LXXIX, 270–1.
Seneca, (1971). Natural Questions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
St, Thomas (1963). Summa Theologiae, vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Walker, I. (1980). The logical status of ‘God’. Religious Studies, XVI, 217–28.
Weitz, M. (1988). Theories of Concepts. New York: Routledge.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Religious Studies
  • ISSN: 0034-4125
  • EISSN: 1469-901X
  • URL: /core/journals/religious-studies
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed