Anselm's Conception Of God

435 Words1 Page

The most compelling or interesting notions in the Proslogion, to me, are that Anselm presumes we can all imagine God; and that imagining God makes God real. What if we can't imagine God? What if such a thing is singularly impossible? How does imagining a thing make it real, and isn't this a reification fallacy? Even if I follow Anselm's logic and agree (and I paraphrase in the extreme) that God is the most possible perfect being I can imagine; and since a property of the most possible perfection necessarily must include actual existence, then God must necessarily exist--even if I concede this, I still can't get over the hurdle of my own imagination and its inherent human limits--I do not find that I can truly imagine God (though this does not mean I can't believe in God; from my perspective, imagination and definition are …show more content…

And yet...isn't this exactly what Anselm indicated? Anselm tells us that God is "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought". Isn't this what I've begun to describe above? I don't think so. I really only described the square circle, the empty solid, the loud silence-- contradictions, one and all. Yet, if I can't imagine a square circle or a loud silence (or any other nonsensical oxymoron), how can I possibly imagine Anselm's vision of God? Once I remove the nonsense of colorless green ideas sleeping furiously, everything I can actually imagine can reasonably be imagined +1 greater this afternoon, or tomorrow morning, or by my more imaginative neighbor. It's like counting natural numbers: you can never imagine the greatest number, because there is always another number after that one. I see God the same way--whatever I can possibly imagine is less than the sum of God; and no, saying that God is more than I can imagine is not equivalent to saying that God is more than can be imagined--and it certainly doesn't in any rational way allow the reification of

Open Document