1

Did Bertrand Russell read and analyse Anselm's Ontological Argument and if so did he have anything positive to say about it?

  • Can a set of processes be said to exist ? Speaking biologically an individual can be partly described as a set of processes. Therefore could one say an individual has the property of existence , in this situation? – user128932 Apr 29 '14 at 6:44
  • Did Russell find it easy or hard to criticize Anselm's arguments? – 201044 Aug 16 '15 at 1:08
1

He did. Read the relevant chapter of his "History of Philosophy". I don't have it with me, but I seem to recall that his criticism of the argument centers around the fact that Anselm treats existence was a (first-order) predicate. Russell thinks this is nonsense.

Russell's wrong. There are perfectly cogent ways of representing existence as first-order, but that's a different discussion.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Such ways don't rescue Anselm's argument, however. – Rex Kerr Apr 28 '14 at 14:57
  • Yes; Russell's criticism is along Frege's analysis of existence as a "second-level" property. I.e. existence is not a property of individuals but of concepts, like number. In the phrase "the seven planets" we are not ascribing the number seven to the individual planets, but to the concept "satellite of the sun". Similarly, when we say that "the King of France exists", we are not "predicating" existence of an individual, but asserting that the concept "King of France" is instantiated (i.e.there is an individual which "fall under" that concept). – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Apr 28 '14 at 15:36
  • @RexKerr I haven't read much of this literature. Do you know of a particularly good paper on the topic? Klima seems to disagree with you: faculty.fordham.edu/klima/FILES/Anselm-PHRU1000.pdf – user5172 Apr 28 '14 at 15:45
  • see note 2 on page six of the above. – user5172 Apr 28 '14 at 15:46
  • 1
    Right. It isn't the existence that is the problem with Anselm. Like Aquinas, Klima thinks the argument is sound, just unpersuasive because the unbeliever does not have to admit that the concept of that than which none greater exists is instantiated. – user5172 Apr 28 '14 at 16:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.