Anselm of Canterbury and the Many Senses of “Being”. A Comparison Between the Argument of the Proslogion and the Regula of the Monologion
A comparison between the argument of the Proslogion and the regula of the Monologion
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/RF.2022.021Abstrakt
This article makes a comparison between Anselm’s so-called “ontological argument” of the Proslogion and the regula he established in the Monologion. This regula would allow, under a certain respect, to consider existence as a perfection attributable to God, even though it does not possess the same ontological status of any other attribute, i.e., it should not be considered what Kant calls a “real predicate”. Consequently, it is possible to outline the different senses in which Anselm understands the notion of “being” and the conditions under which existence and real perfection can transcend the sphere of creatures and in help conceiving God. This distinction of the senses of being would later allow for existence to be considered a perfection, just as real predicates are, but according to
a completely different meaning.
Bibliografia
Aertsen Jan A. 2006. Medieval Philosophy as Transcendental Thought. From Philip the Chancellor (ca. 1225) to Francisco Suárez. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Anselm of Canterbury. 1946. Monologion. In: Opera omnia, ed. F. S. Schmitt, vol. 1, 1–87. Edinburgh: Nelson and Sons.
Anselm of Canterbury. 1946. Proslogion. In: Opera, vol. 1, 89–122.
Campbell Richard. 2018. Rethinking Anselm’s Arguments. A Vindication of his Proof of the Existence of God. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Descartes René. 1996. Meditationes de prima philosophia. In: Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. Ch. Adam, P. Tannery, vol. 7. Paris: Vrin.
Dubouclez Olivier. 2019. “Méditation cinquième” . In: Les Méditations Métaphysiques, Objections et Réponses de Descartes. Un Commentaire, ed. D. Arbib, 153–174. Paris: Vrin.
Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. 1946. Quid ad haec respondeat quidam pro insipiente. In: Anselm of Canterbury, Opera omnia, ed. F. S. Schmitt, vol. 1, 125–129. Edinburgh: Nelson and Sons.
Guerrero-Troncoso Hernán. 2019. “Identidad – confluencia – trascendencia. Elementos para una interpretación histórico-especulativa del argumento de san Anselmo”. Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía v. 36 n. 3: 17–640.
Holopainen Toivo J. 2020. A Historical Study of Anselm’s Proslogion. Argument, Devotion and Rhetoric. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
John Duns Scotus. 1950. Ordinatio I d. 1–2. In: Opera omnia, ed. Commissionis Scotisticae, vol. 2. Civitas Vaticana: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis.
Kant Immanuel. 1993. Kritik der reinen Vernunft, ed. R. Schmidt. Hamburg: Meiner.
McEvoy James. 1994. “La preuve anselmienne de l’existence de Dieu est-elle un argument «ontologique»? À propos de trois interprétations récentes”. Revue Philosophique de Louvain 92/2–3: 167–183.
Sala Giovanni B. 1990. Kant und die Frage nach Gott. Gottesbeweise und Gottesbeweiskritik in den Schriften Kants. Berlin–New York: De Gruyter.
Smith Arthur D. 2014. Anselm’s Other Arguments. Cambridge, MA–London, England: Harvard University Press.
Thomas Aquinas. 1888. Summa theologiae I q. 1–49. In: Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis pp. XIII edita. Studio et cura Fratrum Praedicatorum, vol. 4. Typographia Polyglotta S. C. De propaganda fide: Romae.
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2022 Hernán Guerrero-Troncoso
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
Statystyki
Liczba wyświetleń i pobrań: 402
Liczba cytowań: 0