Wittgenstein’s Case for the Fool
Existence in the Mind Is a Mentalist Assumption in Anselm’s Epistemological Argument in Proslogion, 2
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15173/jhap.v14i2.5907Abstract
In Proslogion, Anselm claims that understanding God as “something beyond which a greater nothing can be thought” refers to God’s existence in the mind and facilitates our understanding of God existing also in reality. The argument is epistemological and not ontological since its conclusion is our understanding of God’s existence, not a proof or demonstration that God exists. However, I argue that Anselm’s notion of existence in the mind invokes mentalism, a claim that meaning is housed in the mind and semantic rules are contained within linguistic expression itself. Wittgenstein argued that mentalism is a mistaken conflation of linguistic understanding with ostensive reference to one’s private sensations. Instead, all linguistic understanding depends on the public use of rules operating within a specific semantic context. If mentalism is false, then the concept of existence in the mind alone is a shallow metaphysical idea, rendering the rest of the argument invalid.
Downloads
References
Aikin, Scott, and Michael Hodges. 2013. “St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument as Expressive: A Wittgensteinian Reconstruction.” Philosophical Investigations 37(2): 130–51.
Anscombe, G.E.M. 2011. “Why Anselm’s Proof in the Proslogion Is Not an Ontological Argument.” In From Plato to Wittgenstein: Essays by G. E. M. Anscombe, edited by Mary Greach and Luke Gormally, 35–43. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Anselmus. 1984. S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia. Edited by Franciscus Salesius Schmitt. Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann Verlag.
Augustinius. 2009. S. Aurelii Augustini Confessionum libri xiii. Edited by Martin Skutella, H. Jürgens, and W. Schwab. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Augustinus, Aurelius. 1970. S. Aurelii Augustini Contra Academicos, De Beata Vita, De Ordine, De Magistro, De Libero Arbitrio. Edited by W. M. Green. Turnhout: Brepols.
Baker, Gordon P., and Peter M.S. Hacker. 2005. Wittgenstein: Understanding and Meaning. Part II: Exegesis §§1-184. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Barth, Karl. 2002. Karl Barth Gesamtausgabe: Abt. II: Fides qauaerens intellectum: Anselms Beweis Der Existenz Gottes im Zusammenhang seines theologischen Programms. Edited by Eberhard Jüngel and Ingolf U. Dalferth. Zurich: Theologisher Verlag.
Brice, Robert G. 2022. Wittgenstein’s On Certainty: Insight and Method. Cham: Springer.
Campbell, Richard. 2022. Rethinking Anselm’s Arguments. A Vindication of His Proof of the Existence of God. Leiden: Brill.
Candlish, Stewart, and George Wrisley. 2019. “Private Language.” Edited by Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/private-language/.
Engelland, Chad. 2023. “Anselm and the Problem of Ostending God.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 61(3): 373–96.
Ferri, Riccardo. 1998. “Mens, ratio e intellectus nei primi dialoghi di Agostino.” Augustinianum 38(1): 121–56.
Gunnell, John G. 2020. Conventional Realism and Political Inquiry. Channeling Wittgenstein. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hintikka, Jaako. 1969. “Wittgenstein on Private Language: Some Sources of Misunderstanding.” Mind 78(311): 423–25.
King, Peter. 1984. “Anselm’s Intentional Argument.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 1(2): 147–65.
———. 2006. “Anselm’s Philosophy of Language.” In The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, edited by Brian Leftow and Brian Davies, 84–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2014. “Augustine on Language.” In The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, edited by David Vincent Meconi and Eleonore Stump, 292–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leftow, Brian. 2022. Anselm’s Argument. Divine Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, David Kellogg. 1970. “Anselm and Actuality.” Noûs 4(2): 175–88.
Logan, Ian. 2009. Reading Anselm’s Proslogion. The History of Anselm’s Argument and Its Significance Today. Fanham: Ashgate.
Matthews, Gareth B. 2006. “Anselm, Augustine, and Platonism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, edited by Brian Leftow and Brian Davies, 61–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Millican, Peter. 2004. “The One Fatal Flaw in Anselm’s Argument.” Mind 113(451): 437–76.
———. 2018. “Anselm.” In Ontological Arguments, edited by Graham Oppy, 19–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moyal-Sharrock, Danièle. 2021. Certainty in Action. Wittgenstein on Language, Mind and Epistemology. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Nawar, Tamer. 2021. “Every Word Is a Name: Autonymy and Quotation in Augustine.” Mind 130(518): 595–616.
Nieuwenhove, Rik Van. 2021. Thomas Aquinas and Contemplation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogers, Katherine A. 2024. “Divine Simplicity: Anselm’s Neoplatonic Approach.” In Ontology of Divinity, edited by Mirosław Szatkowski, 375–90. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Russell, Bertrand. 1967. The History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Smith, Arthur D. 2014. Anselm’s Other Argument. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Southern, Richard W. 1990. Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tapp, Christian, and Geo Siegwart. 2022. “Did Anselm Define God? Against the Definitionist Misrepresentation of Anselm’s Famous Description of God.” Philosophia 50(4): 2125–60.
Viger, Christopher. 2002. “St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument Succumbs to Russell’s Paradox.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52(3): 123–28.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1970. Über Gewißheit. Edited by G.E.M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.
———. 1980. Wittgenstein’s Lectures. Cambridge, 1930-1932. From the Notes of John King and Desmond Lee. Edited by Desmond Lee and John King. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
———. 1989. Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Kritische Edition. Edited by Joachim Schulte. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.
———. 2003. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Published
Issue
Section
License
The Public Knowledge Project recommends the use of the Creative Commons license. The Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy requires authors to agree to a Creative Commons Attribution /Non-commercial license. Authors who publish with the Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC license.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
