8/13/2019 Rohatyn - Anselm's Inconceivability Argument

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rohatyn-anselms-inconceivability-argument 1/7

A N S E L M ' S l k ] C O N C E I V A ~ I L I T Y A D C U ~ E l k T

r ~ e n n i s R o h a t y n *

In a ll t h e h u b b u b o v e r t h e o n t o l o g i c a l a r ~ u m e n t ~

a n o t h e r v e r s i o n o f A n s e l m ' s n r o o f h a s l~ een

n e g l e c t e d . I a m r e f e r r i n ~ t o t h e e l e g a n t f o r m u l a t i o n

w h i c h a l3 D e ar s in C h a p t e r 1 5 o f t h e Pvo~ogion:

T h e r e f o r e ~ k o r d ~ n o t o n l y a r e Y o u t h a t t h a n

w h l 'c h a g r e a t e r c a n n o t b e th o u R ht~ b u t Y o u a r ea ls o s o m e t h i n ~ ~ r e a t e r th a n c a n b e t h o u g h t . P o r

s i n c e i t i s p o s s i b l e to t h i n k t h a t t h e r e is s u c h a

o n e 9 t h e n ~ i f Y o u a r e n o t t h i s s a m e b e i n ~

s o m e t h i n g R r e a t e r t h a n Y o u c a n b e

t h o u g h t - - w h i c h c a n n o t b e . ]

I t w o u l d b e a m i s t a k e ~ I t h in k ~ t o i n t e r p r e t t h i s b r i e f

c h a p t e r a s mere g a n e l u c i d a t i o n o f i t s t i t le ~ " N o w H ei s ~ r e a t e r t h a n c a n b e t h o u g h t " . , r : o r t h e r e i s c l e a r l y

a n a r g u m e n t o n b e h a l f o f G o d 's n e c e s s a r y e x i s t e n c e

o f f e r e d h e r % in t e r m s o f a r e d u c t i o n t o a b s u r d i t y o f

t h e p r e m i s s t h a t s o m e t h in ~ greater t h a n a b e i n ~

~ r e a t e r t h a n c a n b e t h o u R h t c a n b e t h o u g h t , l~y

d e f in i t i o n ~ a b e in ~ ~ r e a t e r t h a n c a n b e t h o u g h t

e x c l u d e s s u ch a th o u g h t a s b o t h p s y c h o l o g i c a l ly a nd

l o ~ i c a I l y in c o n c e i v a b l e . T h e l in e o f a r g u m e n t isi n t e n d e d a s a n o b v i o u s p a r a l l e l o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f

t h e v e r y s i m i l a r ~ b u t m o r e t h o r o u g h l y e x r ~ o s i t e d 9

r e a s o n i n g w h i c h a p p e a r s in C h a p t e r 3 s o m e t h i n ~

t h a n w h i c h a ~ r e a t e r c a n n o t b e t h o u g h t e x i s ts s o

t ru l v~ t he n ~ t h a t i t c a n n o t b e e v e n t h o u g h t n o t t o

e x is t~ ''2 A nd ~ l i k e C h a n t e r 3, t h i s n e w v e r s i o n w i l l

f in d a s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t i o n in t h e d e n ia l o f n e c e ss a r y

p r e d i c a t e s o f p e r f e c t i o n . 1 3 u t t h e c h a r m i n ~ t w i s t o f

C h a r J te r 1 5's f o r m u l a t i o n o f th e a r g u m e n t l i e s in i t s

a t )p e a l t o G o d 's i n c o n c e i v a b i l i t y , l= or t h e D r o o l - i f

t h a t i s h o w w e a r e t o t r e a t t h e c h a n t e r - t u r n s o n t h e

* U n i v e r s i t y o f ~an r~ ie~o , l ISA

7

8/13/2019 Rohatyn - Anselm's Inconceivability Argument

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rohatyn-anselms-inconceivability-argument 2/7

d e m o n s t r a b i Z i t ~ o f t h i s i n c o n c e i v a b i l i t y . I sn ' t t h e r e a

c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n d e m o n s t r a t i n ~ t h a t G o d is

i n c o n c e i v a b l y ~ r e a t , w h e n su ch p r o o f r e q u i r e s us t oc o n c e i v e H i m w h i l e d e n y i n ~ t h a t t h i s is p o s sib le ?

N o , s ay s A n s e l m , t h o u g h h is a n s w e r is c o n t a i n e d

in Chanter 9 of the Repl to G a u n i 3 o Si~n i f i can t lv

Gaunilo did not ra ise this issue in his O n ~ e h a Z f o f

e h e Foo~ which leads me to be l ieve tha t Anse lm

intended the rema rk s to be quoted be low as an

unso lic i te d ~loss on his own te xt . In any case

Anselm holds that :

. . . ju s t a s n o t h in E p r e v e n t s o n e f r o m s a y in ~

' i n e f f a b l e ' a l th o u ~ .h o n e c a n n o t s p e c i f y w h a t i s

sa id t o be i ne ff ab le ; , and j us t as one can t h i n k o ft h e in c o n c e i v a b l e - a l t h o u g h o n e c a n n o t t h i n k o fw h a t ' i n c o n c e i v a b l e ' a p p l ie s t o - so a l so , w h e n

' t h a t t h a n w h i c h a E r e a t e r c a n n o t b e t h o u E h t ' iss p ok e n o f , t h e r e is n o d o u b t a t a l l t h a t w h a t is

h e a r d c a n b e t h o u E h t o f a n d u n d e r s t o o d e v e n i ft h e t h i n e i t s e l f c a n n o t b e h e a r d a n d u n d e r s t o o d . 3

T h e c o n c l u d in ~ s e n t e n c e o f t h i s c h a n t e r a s s e rt s,

a g a in s i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h a t T h e r e f o r e w h a t h e ( e .~ . ,t h e F o o l ) t h i n k s o f ( i .e . , G o d ) e x i s t s n e c e s s a r i l y ,

s in c e w h a t e v e r c a n n o t e x i s t is n o t w h a t h e t h i n k so f . 'r'4 i con c lud e t ha n i n A nse lm 's o wn m ind , t he

s t a n d a r d m o d a l p r o o f ( C h a p t e r 3) a nd t h e a r g u m e n t

f r o m ( o r t o ) i n c o n c e i v a b i l i t y a r e l in k e d , i n te n d e d t oh a ve t h e sa m e t h e o r e m a t i c s t a t u s , a nd f o r t h e s a m e

l o g i c a l r e as o n s . I t is i n t e r e s t i n ~ t o f i n d i n A n s e l m

s uc h a m i x t u r e o f a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n m o t i f s : t h e

t h e m e o f i n c o n c e i v a b l e ~ r e a tn e s s sh o w s t h e

i n f lu e n c e o f P l a t o n i s m , t o w h i c h , o f c o u r s e , A n s e l m

l i k e s o m a n y o f h is m e d i e v a l p r e d e ce s s o rs w a s

i n d e b t e d f o r h i s p o s i t iv e c o n c e p t i o n o f b e in g , l~ u t t h e

i n s i s te n c e t h a t i n c o n c e i v a b l e ~ r e a tn e s s c a n a t l e a s tb e u n d e r s t o o d , e v e n i f i t is n o w h e r e t o b e fo u n d(e . g ., w i t h t h e a id o f t he senses),~ i s couched i n

s e m a n t i c te r m s t h a t a r e w o r t h y o f F r e ~ e: A n s e lm is

in e f f e c t a p p e a l in ~ t o th e s e n s e / r e f e r e n c e d i s t i n c t i o n

8

8/13/2019 Rohatyn - Anselm's Inconceivability Argument

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rohatyn-anselms-inconceivability-argument 3/7

i n a r ~ u i n ~ f o r t h e c o n c e i v a b i l i t y o f t h a t w h i c h i s

i n c o n c e i v a b ] % a n d in d e n y i n ~ t h a t t h i s la n d s h i m , a s

o ~ D o s e d t o h is n o n - t h e i s t i c a d v e r s a r y , in c o n t r a d i c t i o n .

Con tem por ar y discussions of Chant er 15, whileaware of i t s importance, do not seem to a t tach the

label of proo f to it. G As Na rt sh or ne mig ht l~ut it~

Anselm is noised b et we en my st er y and lucidity, 7 and

this , plus the amount of at tent ion lavished on

Cha pte r 3 (and Chan ter 2) by Drevious co mm en ta to r%

suff i ces to explain the comp ara t iv e lack of in tere s t

in Cha pte r 15. So let us try to ref or mu la te the point

of the deduction in such a way as to caDuture thep a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t h e s u r ~ m u m eoqitabi e a n d t h e

s u m m u m i n e f f a b i l e

. Prem/se: it is possible to think of Cod 9rovided

there is no contradiction in the notion of C.od

itself .

. Premise: C o d b y d e f i n i t i o n~ r e a t e r t h a n c a n b e t h o u g h t . 8

( H i s ) l ~ e r f e c t i o n .

i s s o m e t h i n ~T h i s e x p l i c a t e s

. P r o v i s i o n a l c o n c l u s i o n f r o m (1 ,2 ~. i t is p o s s i b l e

t o t h i n k o f G o d as s o m e t h i n R ~ r e a t e r t h a n c a n b e

t h o u R h t .

4 G l o s s o n ( 3 ~ . t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n s e n s e a n d

r e f e r e n c e s h o w s u s t h a t i t i s p o s s ib l e t o t h i n k o f

s o m e t h i n g ~ r e a t e r t h a n c a n b e t h o u g h t w i t h o u t

s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t i o n . In t h in k i n R o f i t w e a r e n o t

d e s c r i b i n R i t , o r r a t h e r w e a r e o n l y d e s c r i b i n ~ i t

n e R a t i v e l y , a s w h a t i t is n o t . 9 T o d e f i n e A is n o t

t o e n c o u n t e r A ; i f b y d e f i n i t i o n A is

u n e n c o u n t e r a b l % t h i s d o e s n o t l e s s e n A ' s

d e f i n a b i l i t y o r m a k e A u n i n t e l l i g i b l e . A t m o s t

w e m i g h t w a n t t o s a y t h a t A is a l i m i t i n ~ c a s e

o f d e f i n i t i o n , w h i c h is e x a c t l y w h a t A n s e l m

w a n t s to s u ~ e s t .

S u a r )o s e i t i s D o s s i b l e t o t h i n k o f a b e in ~ p . r e a t e r

t h a n G o d .

5 9

8/13/2019 Rohatyn - Anselm's Inconceivability Argument

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rohatyn-anselms-inconceivability-argument 4/7

 

9

10

T h e n i t w o u l d f o l l o w t h a t i t i s p o s s ib le t o t h i n k

o f a b e in g g r e a t e r t h a n s o m e t h in ~ ~ r e a t e r t h a n

c a n b e t h o u R h t ( ~ 3 ) .

B u t t h e n o t io n ~ r e a t e r th a n so m e t h in ~ ~ r e a t e r

t h a n c a n be t h o u g h t ~ u n i n t e l l i ~ i b l e .

T h e r e f o r e , s t e p 6 i s i m p o s s i b l e .

Th ere fo re~ s tep 5~ on wh ich s tep 6 depends~ m us t

be f a l se .

T h e r e f o r % b y i n d i r e c t D ro of~ i t is impossZb le t ot h i n k o f a b e i n g ~ r e a t e r t h a n G o d .

I I . l~ u t (a s w e a l r e a d y k n o w f r o m C h a p t e r 3 ) i f i t is

p o s s ib l e t o t h i n k o f G o d ~ t h e n i t is n e c e s s a rvt h a t H e e x is t~ s i n c e a p o s s ib l e p e r f e c t b e i n ~

e n t a i l s i ts o w n (n e c e s s ar y ) a c t u a l i t y , l 0

12. T h e r e f o r % i f i t is p o s s ib l e t o t h i n k o f G o d a s

s o m e t h i n g g r e a t e r t h a n c a n b e t h o u ~ h t ~ t h e n i t i s

( l i k e w i s e ) n e c e s s a r y t h a t H e ~ q u a ~ r e a t e r t h a n

can be t hough t 7 ex i s t .

I n t h e a b o v e p r o o f ~ t h e a s t e r i s k n e x t t o s t e o 5

i n d i c a t e s t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a n h y p o t h e s i s t o b er e f u t e d in s te p 10~ t h e l i n e b e t w e e n 1 -1 0 a n d 1 l - ] 2

i n d ic a t e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n w h a t A n s e lm

e x p l i c i t l y s t a te s in C h a p t e r 15 a nd t h e t a c i tr ea s o n in ~ w h i c h c o m p l e t e s t h e c h a p t e r . F o r re a so n s

o f e l e g a n c % t o a v o i d r e d u n d a n c y o r t h e p o s s i b l e

ins u l t t o the reader~ s teps I 1 -12 a re no t sup l~ lied9 b u t

t h e s t r a t e g y e m p l o y e d (z ed uc ~o ad abs~Jz ~um) is

s u r e l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e e a r l i e r C h a p t e r ~ a n d t h e

RepI9 to Gaun_~o l e a ve s n o d o u b t a s t o A n s e l m ' su l t i m a t e in te n t io n s ~ j u s t a s i t le a v e s n o d o u b t a s t o

t h e m o d e l c h a r a c t e r o f A n s e lm ' s m o s t d e ve lo o e df o r m o f p r o o f . In o t h e r w o rd s~ C h a [ ) t e r 15 c a n b y

i t s e l f s he d n o l i g h t o n t h e q u e s t io n w h e t h e r t h e r e a r et w o p r o o fs ~ o n e i n C h a p t e r 2 a n d a n o th e r~ m o d a l

D r ,o f in C h a p te r _3~1 ] o r w h e t h e r t h e r e i s j u s t o n e

6

8/13/2019 Rohatyn - Anselm's Inconceivability Argument

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rohatyn-anselms-inconceivability-argument 5/7

p r o o f , e x p r e s se d in t w o d i f f e r e n t p la c e % a n d

r e c e iv i n ~ f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t io n in C h a n t e r ~ t h a np r e v i o u s l y . 12 ~ V h ic h e v er a l t e r n a t i v e is a d o l ) te d w i l l

b e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h m y s uR R e st io n t h a t w e re ~ a r d

C h a p t e r 15 a s S uD Dly in ~ a n a d d i t io n a l r e s t a t e m e n t o f

t h e p r o o f , t o b e s u re w i t h a l l o f th e s t r in R e n c y o f

t h e C h a p t e r 3 v e r s i o n b u t m i n u s a c o u p l e o f s te r) s

n e c e ss a ry to c o m p l e t e t h e d e d u c t io n .

\ V ha t a b o u t t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e p r o o f ? O n t h i s

m a t t e r I s h a l l c o n f i n e m y s e l f to t w o c o m m e n t s .

F i r s t , t h e D r o o l in a n y o f i t s ~ uis e s c a n n o t b e s t r i c t l y

a p z - ~ r~ b e c a u s e i t a p p e a l s t o t h e t h . i. n k a b . L Z f t z ] o fG o d , w h i c h r e q u i r e s i f n o t a h u m a n t h e n a r a t i o n a l

a ~ e n t t o c a r r y o u t t h e th o u ~ .h t. O n e c o u l d o f c o u r s e

a r R u e t h a t t h i n k a b i l i t y is i n D r i n c ir ) l e p o s s i b le

w i t h o u t a t h i n k e r , j u s t a s a p l a n e t is p o s s ib le w i t h o u t

a p e r c e i v e r , b u t t h e a n a l o R y s e e m s f o r c e d , in de ed ~

s e e m s t o b e p u s h in ~ r e a l i s m t o o f a r as a n e p i s t e m i c

d o c t r i n e . W e m a y c o n c lu d e t h e n t h a t t h e

c o s m o l o g i c a l a r g u m e n t is n o t t h e o n ly o n e t a i n t e d( s i c ) b y t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f c o n t in R e n t s t a t e s o f

a f f a i r ~ t h a t i n a c e r t a i n s e nse e v e r y a rR u m e n t fo r

G o d ' s e x i s t e n c e i s b a s e d o n f a c t s , a n d i s t h e r e f o r e

i n d u c t i v e e v e n w h e n i t d o e s i t s b e s t t o a v o i d

b e c om i n ~ a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c .

T h e s e co n d r e m a r k is t h a t w e c a n f o r t h e s a k e

o f a r g u m e n t R r a n t t h e c o R e n cy o f A n s e l m ' s

d e r i v a t i o n , a n d y e t f i n d r o o m t o r e m a r k t h a t i t R iv es

u s n o ~ r o u n d s f o r e x u b e r a n c e . \V e a r e s t i l l i n t h e

d a r k a b o u t G o d 's n a tL ir e; w e a r e p e r f o r c e i n t h e

d a rk ~ ~ r a n t e d t h e l o R ic b e h i n d C h a p t e r 15. ~Ve a r e

n o c l o s e r t o a s o l u t i o n o f t h e 13 ro blem o f e v i l , t h e

r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n G o d an d c r e a ti o n~ o r a n y o f t h e

o t h e r s t a n d a r d t h e o l o R i c a l c h a l l e n ~ e s j u s t b e c a u s e

w e h a v e a d e f e n s i b l e c o n c e l ) t io n o f u n s u r D a s s a b i li ty .

T o m e e t t h e l a t t e r w e n e e d a d e v e lo n e d m e t a D h v s i c so f s o m e s o r t o r o t h e r . 13 T h e p r o o f , a n d t h e

c o n c e p t i o n o f G o d w h i c h p l a y s a d e c i s i v e D a r t in i t ,

w i l l th e n b e c o m e c o ~ s in a m u c h l a rR e r w h e e l , r ~ t

w h a t i s m o r e i m p o r t a n t e v en t h a n f in din g, t h e p l a c e

6

8/13/2019 Rohatyn - Anselm's Inconceivability Argument

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rohatyn-anselms-inconceivability-argument 6/7

of the ontoloRical arRument in a lar~er world-view~ isto make that world-view DsycholoRicallv comDellin~and plausib le. 13 In th e sr~ecific con tex t in which we

are dealing, that means making us understand why

God, if tqe exist% is a beinR worthy of worshiD, not

just theo ret ica l acknowledRement . Perfe ct ion a lone

can not acc oun t for this; and i t is this , r ath er than

some nicety about modalities c/e d~c~o or #e re,

which demands urgent a t ten t ion from the

co nt em po ra ry DhilosoDhical minds to whom Anselm

streaks as a peer . Anselm himself had no di ff ic ul ty in

fulfillin~ this requirement, since his own Dr.oof is

em be dd ed in a way of life, not just in a te xt . 1~ Rut

theism has come a lon~ way since then, and it needs

t o r e s t o re t h e c o n n e c t i o n o f i t s o w n a b s t r a c t io n s w i t hl i v e d e x p e r i e n c e w i t h o u t c o m p r o m i s i n ~ t h e ~ a i n s o f

u n i v e r s a l i t y a nd t h e d e t a c h m e n t f r o m s e c t a ri a n is mw h i c h h a v e b ee n m a d e i n t h e i n t e r i m .

F o o t n o t e s

1. M . J . C h a r l e s w o r t h , t r . , s t . Anselm s Pz~slogion

( O x f o r d , 1 96 5), p . 1 3 7 . H e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a sP.

2. P, D.119.

3. The Au thod s Rep ly to C.aunilo, in p, r)D.lg7-89/4 . P p . l g 9 .

5. This kind of empir icis m is of course what

d o m i n a t e s t h e o b j e c t i o n s s e t f o r t h b y G a u n i l o ,a n d is a t t h e c r u x o f t h e d e b a t e b e t w e e n h i m s e l fa nd t h e r a t i o n a l i s t A n s e lm .

6 . F o r e x a m p l % C h a r l e s w o r t h , i n h is a d m i r a b l e

app a ra tus , i n P , p .81 . See a l so h is co m m en ts o nineffabi l i ty , a t pp .39 , 9g.

7 . C . H a r t s h o r n e , ~ he Lo ~c o f Pez~ee f - /on (LaSa l le ,

Ill., 1962), 0.4.g. The Latin her e is q u i d d a m m a d u s q u a m c o g i t a z ~

p o s ~ The corresponding tar for the Chal3ter 3

formulat ion is q u o m a i u s c o g i t a r i n o n p o t e s t ,

that than which a ~reater cannot be thought .

6 2

8/13/2019 Rohatyn - Anselm's Inconceivability Argument

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rohatyn-anselms-inconceivability-argument 7/7

9. This of course ref lec ts the lon~-e ntrench ed ~a

n e g a ~ v a in medieval, Diatonically inspired

theology.

l 0. Fo r discussion, se e Na rt sh or ne , o p . e i t , DD.70, 103.

l 1. For discussion, see C. Flartsho rne, A n s e l m s

m ~ c o v e ~ (LaSalle, Ill.~ 19~5).

12. Gaunilo, in A R epl ~ on Behalf_ of th e Foo~ is

aware of the modal ch ar ac te r of a t leas t some

(thread) of the argument , for he remarks that

when...i t is said that this sunreme bein~ cannot

be ehouqhe not to exist, it would ~erha~s be

bet ter to say that i t cannot be u n ~ e ~ t o o ~ not to

exi st nor even to be able not to exi st (P, D. 1651tr. 's i talics). Ironically, Gaunilo wishes th at

modali ty were a more integral Dart of the

ar gu me nt - a sure sign tha t he, l ike the

tradition, has missed its a pno~ fo rce .

13. These requi rem ent s have already been met , th e

firs t largely by Hartshorne, the second by

\v illiam 3ame s.

1~. This is presumably the force of the l~arthiancrit ique of Anselm, and of Anselm scholarshin.

6