No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Anselm and the Apophatic: “Something Greater than Can Be Thought”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
Abstract
Anselm's ontological proof, which sets out to show that God must exist and which depends upon the premise that human beings can conceptualize God, seems antithetical to the apophatic tradition, but Anselm's work in general and his proof in particular are, nonetheless, exemplars of apophasis. The proof shows the atheist's position to be untenable, while also revealing the ambiguities of the believer's claim. In proving the necessary existence of God, Anselm destroys all idols and with them, all human conceptions of divinity, for whatever conception can be achieved always stands vulnerable to being overcome. Thus, Anselm is left to conclude that God is in fact “something greater than can be thought.” Anselm shows that language can never offer a final and complete formulation for God, and he does so through his own name for God (“something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought”), a name that remains brilliantly open and which is ingenious, not for what it affirms about God, but rather for what it denies.
- Type
- Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The author 2007. Journal compilation
References
1 Anselm, , Monologion, trans. Harrison, Simon, in Davies, Brian and Evans, G. R., ed., Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar, prologue.
2 Ibid., chap. 1.
3 Ibid., chap. 17.
4 See ibid., chapters 20 and 21 respectively. The argument in these chapters is here being compared to the general form of the Parmenides, Deductions 1 and 2, in which numerous contradictory conclusions are reached. However, these specific arguments can also be found there (see 138a, 141a, 151a, and 155d).
5 Ibid., chap. 22, emphasis mine.
6 Schufreider, Gregory, Confessions of a Rational Mystic: Anselm's Early Writings (West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 1994), p. 84Google Scholar.
7 Anselm, Monologion, chap. 26.
8 Ibid., chap. 27, emphasis mine.
9 Ibid., chap. 28.
10 Rogers, Katherin A., The Neoplatonic Metaphysics and Epistemology of Anselm of Canterbury (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1997), p. 221.Google Scholar
11 Anselm, Monologion, chap. 40.
12 Ibid., chap. 31.
13 Ibid., chap. 36.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., chap. 38.
16 Ibid., chap. 64
17 Rogers, pp. 209–12.
18 Anselm, Monologion, chap. 65.
19 Ibid.
20 Augustine, , Confessions, trans. Chadwick, Henry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 114Google Scholar; 7.4.6.
21 Ward, Sister Benedicta, Anselm of Canterbury: A Monastic Scholar (Fairacres: SLG Press, 1973), p. 18.Google Scholar
22 Psalm 14.1.
23 Barth, Karl, Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum, ed. Hadidian, Dikran Y., Pittsburgh Reprint Series 2, (London: SCM Press, 1960; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975), pp. 150–51Google Scholar.
24 Anselm, , Proslogion, trans. Charlesworth, M. J., in Davies, Brian and Evans, G. R., ed., Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, ed. Davies, Brian and Evans, G. R. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar, chap. 1.
25 Ibid.
26 Bouillard, Henri, The Knowledge of God, trans. Femiano, Samuel D. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968), p. 72Google Scholar.
27 I have chosen to use masculine pronouns throughout for consistency with Anselm, as the character of the “fool” in Proslogion is male. I hope no one will object that the Fool is here thought of as a man.
28 Barth, pp. 165–68.
29 Johnson, Clark B., “Why the Atheist is Not a Fool,”International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 4 (1973), pp. 55–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 Smith, George H., Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1979), pp. 16–17Google Scholar.
31 Hopkins, Jasper, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972), p. 71Google Scholar.
32 Anselm, Proslogion, chap. 2.
33 Hartshorne, Charles, Anselm's Discovery: A Re-examination of the Ontological Proof for God's Existence (La Salle: Open Court, 1991), p. 52Google Scholar.
34 Anselm, Proslogion, chap. 2.
35 Barth, p. 73.
36 Smart, J. J. C., Atheism and Theism (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996), p. 38Google Scholar.
37 Gibson, A. Boyce, Theism and Empiricism (London: SCM Press, 1970), p. 124Google Scholar.
38 Smith, George H., Why Atheism? (Amherst: Prometheus, 2000), p. 154Google Scholar.
39 Anselm, Proslogion, chap. 3.
40 Bencivenga, Ermanno, Logic and Other Nonsense: The Case of Anselm and His God (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 113Google Scholar, note 1.
41 Fabro, Cornelio, God in Exile: Modern Atheism, trans. Gibson, Arthur (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1968), p. 60Google Scholar.
42 Anselm, , “Reply to Gaunilo,” trans. Charlesworth, M. J., in Davies, Brian and Evans, G. R., ed., Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar, chap. 3.
43 Wyschogrod, Michael, The Body of Faith: Judaism as Corporeal Election (New York: Seabury, 1983), p. 151Google Scholar.
44 Johnson, p. 53.
45 Farley, Edward, Divine Empathy: A Theology of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), p. 53Google Scholar.
46 Anselm, Proslogion, chap. 14.
47 Edward Farley, Divine Empathy, p. 58.
48 Anselm, Proslogion, chap. 15.
49 Ibid., chap. 16.
50 Hayen, André, “The Role of the Fool in St. Anselm and the Necessarily Apostolic Character of True Christian Reflection,” Arthur, trans. McGill, C., in Hick, John and McGill, Arthur C., ed., The Many-Faced Argument: Recent Studies on the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God (New York: MacMillan, 1967), p. 172Google Scholar.