The Proslogion: Philosophy and Logic

• Authors: Testi Claudio , Casarosa Matteo

Title variants

PL

Proslogion: filozofia i logika

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This article proposes an interpretation of St Anselm’s Proslogion that highlights its overall structure and theoretical core. The analysis is conducted in two stages: (a) discussion of the text and its previous interpretations in order to clarify Anselm’s premises and reasoning; (b) formal analysis of the arguments through symbolic logic, and comparison with other ontological arguments. More precisely, we describe a first-order theory corresponding to our interpretation of Anselm’s commitments and show that his conclusions follow from these axioms. The theses that this study will defend are the following: (a) the unum argumentum applies only to “id quo maius cogitari nequit” and not to other similar concepts, such as that of “most perfect being”; (b) the treatise has an overall unity that has an ascending trend; (c) our original formalization of the unum argumentum not only captures the essence of the Proslogion, but also clarifies some features of conceivability.

PL

Artykuł ten przedstawia interpretację Proslogionu św. Anzelma, która ukazuje jego strukturę oraz teoretyczny rdzeń. Analiza została przeprowadzona w dwóch etapach: (1) dyskusja dotycząca tekstu i jego dotychczasowych interpretacji, służąca rozjaśnieniu przesłanek, na których bazuje Anzelm, oraz jego rozumowania; (b) formalna analiza argumentacji z użyciem logiki symbolicznej i porównanie jej z innymi dowodami ontologicznymi. Precyzyjnie rzecz ujmując, opisujemy teorię pierwszego rzędu odpowiadającą naszej interpretacji założeń Anzelma i pokazujemy, że jego wnioski wynikają z owych aksjomatów. Niniejsze studium broni następujących tez: (1) unum argumentum ma zastosowanie tylko do „id quo maius cogitari nequit”, a nie do innych podobnych pojęć, takich jak „byt najdoskonalszy”; (b) traktat jest spójny i charakteryzuje się jednością z tendencją wzrastającą; (c) nasza oryginalna formalizacja unum argumentum nie tylko uchwytuje istotę Proslogionu, lecz także rozjaśnia pewne cechy pojmowalności.

Keywords

EN

Proslogion; St Anselm; symbolic logic; conceivability; natural theology

PL

Proslogion; św. Anzelm; logika symboliczna; pojmowalność; teologia naturalna

• Publisher: University of Warsaw, Institute of Philosophy
• Journal: Edukacja Filozoficzna
• Year: 2022
• Issue: 73
• Pages: 79-121

Contributors

author

Testi Claudio

author

Casarosa Matteo

References

• Anselm, Monologion and Proslogion: With the Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm, ed. T. Williams, Indianapolis 1995 (Kindle edition).
• Anselm, Proslogion, in: Anselm, Monologion and Proslogion: With the Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm, ed. T. Williams, Indianapolis 1995, pp. 91–118 (Kindle edition).
• Anselm, Reply to Gaunilo, in: Anselm, Monologion and Proslogion: With the Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm, ed. T. Williams, Indianapolis 1995, pp. 127–140 (Kindle edition).
• Anselm, Proslogion (Latin text), in: Anselmo, Proslogion, ed. I. Sciuto, Milano 1996, pp. 83–143.
• Anselm, Responsio Anselmi (Latin text), in: Anselmo, Proslogion, ed. I. Sciuto, Milano 1996, pp. 163–192.
• Anselmo, Proslogion, ed. I. Sciuto, Milano 1996.
• Archambault J., Monotonic and Non-Monotonic Embeddings of Anselm’s Proof, “Logica Universalis” 2017, Vol. 11, pp. 121–138, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-017-0162-7.
• Barnes J., The Ontological Argument, London–Basingstoke 1972, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00773-8.
• Barzaghi G., La prova dell’esistenza di Dio. Il retroscena metafisico della dimostrazione, “Aquinas” 2019, Vol. 62, No. 1–2, pp. 11–20.
• Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, in: Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies, eds. J. Cottingham, B. Williams, Cambridge 2017 (Kindle edition), pp. 1–73.
• Desclés J.-P., A Logical Analysis of the Anselm’s Unum Argumentum (from Proslogion), “Logica Universalia” 2017, Vol. 11, pp. 105–119, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-017-0163-6.
• Eder G., Ramharter E., Formal Reconstructions of St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument, “Synthese” 2015, Vol. 192, No. 9, pp. 2795–2825, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0682-8.
• Gaunilo, Answer on Behalf of the Fool, in: Anselm, Monologion and Proslogion: With the Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm, ed. T. Williams, Indianapolis 1995, pp. 119–126 (Kindle edition).
• Gaunilo, Responsio insipiens (Latin text), in: Anselmo, Proslogion, ed. I. Sciuto, Milano 1996, pp. 145–161.
• Gendler T.S., Hawthorne J., eds., Conceivability and Possibility, Oxford 2002.
• Gödel K., Ontological Proof, in: K. Gödel, Collected Works. III: Unpublished Essays and Lectures, eds. S. Feferman, J. Dawson, S. Kleene, G. Moore, R. Solovay, J. van Heijenoort, Oxford 1995, pp. 403–404.
• Henkin L., The Completeness of the First-Order Functional Calculus, “The Journal of Symbolic Logic” 1949, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 159–166, https://doi.org/10.2307/2267044.
• Henry D.P., The Logic of St. Anselm, Oxford 1993.
• Henry D.P., Medieval Logic and Metaphysics, London 1972.
• Klima G., Saint Anselm’s Proof: A Problem of Reference, Intentional Identity and Mutual Understanding, in: Medieval Philosophy and Modern Times, ed. G. Holstrom-Hintikka, Dordrecht 2000, pp. 69–87, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4227-4_6.
• Lejewski C., Logic and Existence, “British Journal for the Philosophy of Science” 1954, Vol. 5, pp. 104–119, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/V.18.104.
• Lolli G., Odifreddi P., eds., Kurt Gödel: la prova matematica dell’esistenza di Dio, Milano 2006, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-0640-9_8.
• Nowicki M., Anselm and Russell, “Logic and Logic Philosophy” 2006, Vol. 15, pp. 355–368, https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2006.020.
• Oppenheimer P., Zalta E., On the Logic of the Ontological Argument, in: Philosophical Perspectives 5: The Philosophy of Religion, ed. J. Tomberlin, Atascadero 1991, https://doi.org/10.2307/2214107.
• Oppy G., Ontological Arguments, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), ed. E.N. Zalta, URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/ontological-arguments/.
• Piazza G., Il nome di Dio, Bologna 2000.
• Reicher M., Nonexistent Objects, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), ed. E.N. Zalta, URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/nonexistent-objects/.
• Quine W.O., On What There Is, in: W.O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA, 1953, pp. 1–19.
• Priest G., Beyond the Limits of Thought, Oxford 2002, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199254057.001.0001.
• Robinson T.A., A New Formalization of Anselm’s Ontological Argument, in Philosophy Faculty Publications 2004, Vol. 6, URL: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/philosophy_pubs/6.
• Sciuto I., Introduzione, in: Anselmo, Proslogion, ed. I. Sciuto, Milano 1996, pp. 5–76.
• Silvestre R.S., On the Logical Formalization of Anselm’s Ontological Argument, “Revista Brasileira de Filosofia da Religião” 2015, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 142–161.
• Slupecki J., Leśniewski Calculus of Name, in: Leśniewski’s System: Ontology and Mereology, eds. J. Srzeduick, V. Rickey, Boston–Lancaster 1984, pp. 59–122.
• Sobel J.H., Logic and Theism: Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God, Cambridge 2003, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497988.
• Testi C.A., Unicità e unità dell’Unum Argumentum di Anselmo d’Aosta, “Aquinas” 2021, Vol. 2, pp. 473–491.
• Tomatis F., L’argomento ontologico: l’esistenza di Dio da Anselmo a Schelling, Milano 2010.
• Tomossi R.G., Prove logiche dell’esistenza di Dio: da Anselmo a Kurt Gödel, Milano 2005.
• Viger C., St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument Succumbs to Russell’s Paradox, “International Journal for Philosophy of Religion” 2002, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 123–128, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020838315668.