Apology

The other parts of this tract are argued so truly, so brilliantly and so splendidly, and are also of so much worth and instinct with so fragrant a perfume of devout and holy feeling, that in no way should they be rejected because of those things at the beginning (rightly intuited, but less surely argued out). Rather the latter should be demonstrated more firmly and so everything received with very great respect and praise.

I would suggest to you, my patient readers, that the above claims should be evident. I merely exhort all who read this to give great consideration and patience to any of the great thinkers that have gone before, and most especially if they bear the great title of Doctor of the Church as St. Anselm, Doctor Magnificens.



In the St. Anselm's Proslogion, he makes his famous and controversial argument for the existence of God. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with this argument, in the end all can agree that it is hard to wrap one's mind about the argument, and in particular, to find the middle term of the argument. Below I will argue that the reason this difficulty arises is that the argument is to be taken as per se notum, that this is the best way to take the argument, and that the arguments St. Anselm does provide are merely manifestations of the truth is he is trying to show, not actually proofs or demonstrations of that conclusion. I will quote St. Anselm's argument below, and then begin my discussion.

And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind even, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater. If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is obviously impossible. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality.

Now, “Ex hoc enim aliqua propositio est per se nota quod praedictum uncluditur in ratione subiecti.” (ST1,Q2,a1 respondeo). Therefore, in order to show that St. Anselm's proposition is per se notum, we must discover the predicate in the account of subject. It is important to note here St. Thomas's distinction, i.e. “Aliquid dicitur per se notum dupliciter: uno modo, secundum se et non quoad nos; alio modo, secudum se et quoad nos.” Now, the subject of the proposition in question is That-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought; the predicate is existence. That this is per se notum is clear from this, that the very argument for the truth of the proposition is the subject itself. The very reason, that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought, exists is that it is that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought, which is to say, that the predicate is contained in the subject. This is shown in other per se notum propositions as well.
They way St. Anselm gives the argument, it seems as though there is actually a movement of the mind. However, it is merely a manifestation of the truth through the the subject of the proposition, not an actual demonstration. Let us take, for example another per se notum proposition,the whole is greater than the part. If the whole is less than the part, then it would a part, but it is the whole, which is absurd, therefore the whole is greater than the part. Thus, we see that one can give the appearance of an some sort of demonstration for per se notum propositions, but they will always bear the traits of being a reduxio and of turning to the subject, or definition of the subject for the “reason”.
St. Anselm never seems to be formally attentive to this idea in his work, though his argument seems to tend this way even from the beginning when he his discussing how it came to him, "So it was that one day when I was quite worn out with resisting its importunacy, there came to me, in the very conflict of my thoughts, what I had despaired of finding, so that I eagerly grasped the notion which in my distraction I had been rejecting." Upon examination of his arguments one sees the same pattern throughout. I will leave this to you to prove to yourself, gentle reader. What I am chiefly concerned with here, is the nature of his main argument as we have given it above. I will therefore turn to my final concern and show this is the best way to take the argument.
The argument for why this is the best way to take the argument is simple: it is the only way the argument can be seen to be true. Remember above when we made the distinction between per se notum propositions. St. Anselm's proposition is a case of a proposition that is per se notum in itself, but not to us. For if one could grasp fully what it was to be God, that is, if one could see the divine essence or comprehend it, that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists, would be a self evident proposition. Furthermore, St. Thomas treats the argument in Question 2, article 1, as a self evident proposition. Therefore it seems clear that this is the best way to take the argument.

I know that I failed to provide an examination of the various arguments from Anselm's text, but I thought it better to avoid the tediom of such an exercise. Moreover, what is important here is to see the nature of Anselm's first argument as well as to see that this is the best way to take the argument, and this has been shown.