In Defense of Anselm

Philo 8 (1):55-58 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

David Truncellito provides an analysis of Anselm’s ontological argument according to which Anselm’s use of the term “God” equivocates between purported reference to a being and reference to the idea of that being. I argue that this interpretation does not capture Anselm’s intent, and offer another analysis of the argument that charges Anselm with a different equivocation.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

In Defense of Anselm.Steven S. Aspenson - 1990 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 7 (1):33-45.
Losing the Lost Island.Thomas M. Ward - 2018 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 83 (1):127-134.
Does Anselm beg the question?Keith Burgess-Jackson - 2014 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 76 (1):5-18.
Anselm’s Argument: Divine Necessity by Brian Leftow (review).Jennifer Hart Weed - 2025 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 63 (1):149-151.
Envoi.Brian Leftow - 2022 - In Anselm's Argument: Divine Necessity. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. pp. 304.
The Ontological Argument.Stephen Makin - 1988 - Philosophy 63 (243):83 - 91.
The Ontological Argument and Objects of Thought.Edward Wierenga - 2011 - Philosophic Exchange 42 (1):82-103.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-01-09

Downloads
129 (#349,926)

6 months
21 (#521,533)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Mark Webb
Texas Tech University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Anselm.Sandra Visser & Thomas Williams - 2009 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Thomas Williams.

Add more references