Abstract

It has become customary to dismiss Saint Anselm's argument on the ground that it involves an illicit transition from the ideal to the real order, i.e., from the concept of God in the mind to the actual existence of God. Yet, despite its many "refutations," the argument has been able to survive, and it continues to stimulate many present-day thinkers. Charles Hartshorne at first rejected the argument on the assumption that Anselm's concept of "God" had a double meaning--referring to a perfect, and then to a relatively perfect being. In later works, he tried to reach a compromise between the two concepts. ;Norman Malcolm, who was the first to point out the difference between proofs I and II, rejects the first proof as resting on a false premise, namely, that mere existence is a perfection and hence a real predicate. He accepts the second proof of Proslogion III on the ground that "necessary existence," is a perfection, or property of God. ;Paul Weiss rejects the argument completely and tries to show that no transition from the ideal to the real order is ever possible. Weiss suggests one way of solving Anselm's dilemma is to do away with the theory of creation and take refuge in the doctrine of the world of actualities. ;The Ratio Anselmi is not circular, as some of its critics are wont to call it, because the existence of God is not a presupposition of the argument itself, but rather the conclusion of extensive reasoning from the ideological content of a being than which nothing greater is conceivable. Anselm's intent in the writing of the Proslogion is to show that it is impossible to have a concept of God in the sense mentioned and at the same time deny God's existence. This is the originality of the Anselmian argument