In a recent discussion about Anselm’s famous ontological argument, my interlocutor claimed that the superiority of real existence over mental existence is merely a subjective opinion; to put it another way, he claimed that real being is not really greater than ideal being alone. In the past, I considered such statements to be par for the course when discussing this particular moment in the history of philosophy. But more and more, I have come to see this line of thinking as a common error that needs to be corrected. Let me explain.
Saint Anselm was a towering figure of the medieval church and an important contributor to the history of medieval philosophy. Broadly speaking, Anselm was a churchman of the Augustinian tradition. His outlook was broadly Platonic, but his priorities were pastoral and personal. He was an excellent example of the faithful follower of Augustine seeking to understand more deeply what he already believed with faith. To this end, Anselm formulated a single argument to prove that God must exists; this argument also serves as a guide the way for discovering further truths about God. This argument came to be called the ontological argument and it differed sharply from most theistic arguments that are more cosmological.
Most arguments for the existence of God are cosmological, that is, they are based on observations about certain features of the cosmos. On the basis of these features, the mind rises to the discovery of God as First Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, et cetera. This kind of argument is categorized as a posteriori because the conclusion comes after experience. By contrast, Anselm’s argument is purely conceptual; it moves from the idea of God in the mind to His real existence. For this reason, Anselm’s argument is considered an a priori argument because it proceeds prior to (or without) experience. I do not intend to explain the argument in detail or defend it. My sympathies run in the cosmological direction. However, I do hold Anselm’s argument in high regard, and I believe that the background metaphysical insights at work in the argument are very important for the development of knowledge and human flourishing more generally.
The key insight of Anselm’s argument is the claim that it would be greater for God to exist in the mind and outside of the mind, than for God to exist only in the mind. And since this is so, God must exist outside of the mind, otherwise God would not be ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived,’ which is Anselm’s definition of God. The key premise here is the claim that existing within and outside the mind is greater than existing only. Now my interlocutor would have it that this premise is a subjective judgement — it does not reflect something real about the world. In this perspective to say that something is greater than another expresses the feelings of the subject, not any real fact about the object. This view is badly misguided.
Let us begin by analyzing Anselm’s use of the term “greater.” Anselm says that is greater to exist both inside and outside the mind. The word greater is a comparative term that means something like more or better, and it is important to recognize that comparative terms are only really meaningful when they are attached to an underlying concept or subject matter. For example, to say that so and so is a greater or better soldier, scholar, or craftsman is perfectly intelligible and may or may not be subjective depending upon the context. An artisan can demonstrate his superiority by the mastery of his craft. Even more to the point consider this example: X is a greater obstacle than Y. The meaning here is quite clear. An obstacle impedes progress in a given endeavor. Likewise, the meaning of a great or lesser obstacle is also quite evident: one obstacle impedes more strongly or forcefully than another does. Again, all of this is quite clear. Moreover, in this case the greater and lesser impediment is evidently an objective measure. In some cases, the relative force of the impediment may be weighed or at the very least the outcomes may be observed. I think something similar should be said about Anselm’s thesis and the reliability of classical metaphysics in general.
Anselm is correct. It is greater to be in the mind and reality than only in the mind. This is made evident by considering the underlying subject of the modifier “greater.” What is at stake in Anselm’s argument is most likely existence. Now is more existence greater than less existence? Obviously the answer is yes. And to exist both in the mind and outside the mind is clearly more existence than to exist only in the mind. And the same line of reasoning can be applied if we wish to switch out being for existence. A being that exists in the mind and outside of the mind is more being than a mere being of reason. And so on. But let us take the matter a little further than what is laid down explicitly in Anselm’s argument.
I suspect that behind my interlocutor’s skepticism is a deeper and more worrisome skepticism. At root, the poor fellow may be deceived into the view that being and nothing are equal or at the very least that being is not intrinsically greater than non-being. This sort of skepticism is the inevitable result of the metaphysical poverty of the modern mind, especially in regards to the unity of the transcendental properties of being.
It was well-known to the ancient philosophers and medieval theologians, including Anselm, that certain, basic categories of thought actually reflect universally applicable aspects of being that are not in fact expressed explicitly in the bald term “being.” Thomas Aquinas provides perhaps the definitive account of this doctrine. In his view, terms like goodness, truth, and unity are said of every instance of being across categories and species. And this is so because goodness, truth, and unity are ultimately reducible to being. This is most evident with respect to goodness.
The term “good” is rather abstract and empty on its own. The term “good” makes the most sense when it is attached to a definable subject. Peter Geach is well known for making this point. Phrases like a good student, good teacher, or good soldier all make perfect sense. A good soldier exhibits the bravery and military skills required for armed, organized combat. Used in this way good indicates that a given individual exhibits the perfections characteristic to a certain kind of thing (a species). To put it another way, a good X, is an individual X that has actualized the capabilities of being an X to a significant degree. This may seem trivial but it is not. In fact, this insight opens the mind to seeing the transcendental reality of goodness and similar aspects of being. When goodness it tied directly to the actualization of species specific potencies we are dealing with reality — real being.
Aristotle speaks well he says that being is primarily said of substance, an individual thing that exists in itself, is spoken of in itself, and is understood in itself. Being of this sort is more fundamental than being that exists in another and is said of another.
Without delving into all of the attached arguments, I will simply state that substance, that which subsists, consists in individualized essence; this is the formal ratio of a thing made concrete in time and space. This intelligible reality is the fundamental unit of reality. All relations, processes, and qualities arise from this solid and dynamic reality. What does this have to do with goodness? If classical philosophy is correct, then goodness is tied to the realization of the species and species is nothing more or less than the abstracted concept of individualized essence. Goodness is therefore tied to every instance of essence – actualization across every species and every individual. Nothing could be more real than goodness because goodness is simply the higher realization of being in its growth towards perfection. This is the transcendental reality of goodness and ignorance of this aspect of being is at the root of a great deal of non-sense, including the denial of Anselm’s thesis that being is greater than nonbeing.
How did it come to pass that modern man for all of his reputed sophistication lost sight of these deep but basic truths of reality? The answer to that question is too lengthy for the end of this essay, but I will take it up in a future essay. Perhaps it will be entitled, “How modernity lost its grip.” We shall see. But for now the patient reader should be rewarded with this: being is greater than nonbeing, being is intrinsically intelligible, and being and goodness are really the same.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.