In this essay I will discuss how Anselm specifies God in a vague manner making it difficult to understand, at first, what he is talking about. Also, I will discuss whether or not it is possible for there to be something that is greater than God himself. In Anselm’s text, “On the Ontological Argument,” he starts by saying that something than which nothing greater can be thought could be an idea or an understanding. He explains how something than which nothing greater can be thought “cannot be nonexistent even in thought.” (132). To begin, he describes something in which nothing greater can be thought as an understanding. Then he proceeds by claiming “something” as an actual being, which turns out to be God.
To start out, Anselm says that something than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding or in the mind. Anselm says that the fool understands that something than which nothing greater can be thought …show more content…
Without knowing that Anselm is talking about God to begin with can cause an uncertainty because there is a possibility that instead of a person it could have been a molecule or some sort of substance. This being could be God, or it could be something else that is not God. Without specifically knowing who or what Anselm was talking about at the beginning of his argument, endless possibilities of something than which nothing greater can be though can arise. Thus interpreting that something than which nothing greater can be thought has potential to be something that is not God.
Although there are ways that I may have lacked consideration, Anselm lacked the ability to specify the identity of God to begin with. It is reasonable to believe that the God that Anselm is explaining could be thought of as an object or different being, to another person, during the first premises due to his inexplicit description of
To start out, Anselm says that something than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding or in the mind. Anselm says that the fool understands that something than which nothing greater can be thought …show more content…
Without knowing that Anselm is talking about God to begin with can cause an uncertainty because there is a possibility that instead of a person it could have been a molecule or some sort of substance. This being could be God, or it could be something else that is not God. Without specifically knowing who or what Anselm was talking about at the beginning of his argument, endless possibilities of something than which nothing greater can be though can arise. Thus interpreting that something than which nothing greater can be thought has potential to be something that is not God.
Although there are ways that I may have lacked consideration, Anselm lacked the ability to specify the identity of God to begin with. It is reasonable to believe that the God that Anselm is explaining could be thought of as an object or different being, to another person, during the first premises due to his inexplicit description of