Anselm's Proslogion and Thomas Aquinas

Anselm's Proslogion And Thomas Aquinas The purpose of the present paper is to discuss four issues. The first one that we will be addressing refers to a statement that Anselm of Canterbury has made, that is: "For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand." This has sometimes been interpreted as an endorsement of a leap of faith or blind belief. In the following pages we will try to explain if this is really what he meant.

It is obvious that Anselm makes a direct connection between faith and understanding. We could begin by analyzing the construction of the two phrases. The first one actually means that understanding would lead to believing. The second one states the exact opposite. In the first case, we would be taken in the area of philosophical debate regarding the existence of god. In other words, some people argue that if they were to believe in god, they first need a proof of his existence.

Therefore, the proof is the reason upon which faith is constructed. The proof could be something tangible, such as a piece of cloth or a literary text, yet it may also derive from a logical process which succeeds to demonstrate god's existence beyond any doubt.

Taking a look at the philosophical arena in which this argument has been debated, we realize that all the arguments provided by philosophers and religious minds throughout time has a weak side and that those supporting the opposite view use this very weakness in order to create and sustain their thesis. Anselm is aware of this. Perhaps the philosophers have been unable to demonstrate the existence of god through logical argumentation because the matter is too complex for the present development of the human intellect.

Perhaps they are unable to demonstrate it because god does not exist. Here we should nevertheless mention that no philosopher has ever demonstrated that god doesn't exist either. Or perhaps the matter is simply looked at from the wrong perspective. And this is what Anselm does, he changes approach to the matter. According to him, the understanding of god's existence is closely related to faith, in the sense that it can not occur in its absence. Is this really blind faith? It is not.

The existence of god is a very complex argument and there are various reasons for which one might choose to believe in him. We could suggest that in some cases, the idea of god acts through the placebo effect. One convinces himself that god exists and ends up believing in him, benefiting from the advantages of such an attitude. Is this what Anselm is talking about? The answer is again no, and this is obvious because in this type of approach there is no concern for understanding.

Other people might find a psychological necessity for comfort in the idea of god. In this case, they are unable to live without it. Yet this case also falls outside Anselm's reasoning. What he means is that the concepts of faith and that of understanding of god both fall outside the logical approach. Reading between the lines, we understand that god is a personal issue, in the sense that it can be understood at personal level only.

It is perhaps this the reason for which philosophers fail to provide an explanation which is universally valid and accepted. God is a mystery and this mystery can be revealed only in the presence of faith. Once faith exists (even in the possibility of god's existence), the man has a pure heart, independent of all the passions and selfish interests that and is ready to understand what god is. From this point-of-view, it could also be stated that the understanding of god can occur only through intuition or through revelation.

Revelation can occur only when faith exists. And faith is supported by intuition. The second question that we will try to answer refers to the following issue: Univocal predication is impossible between God and creatures. Neither, on the other hand, are names applied to God and creatures in a purely equivocal sense, as some have said. Therefore it must be said that these names are said of God and of creatures in an analogous sense, that is, according to proportion.

Our goal is to explain why univocal and equivocal predication are useless when speaking of god according to Thomas Aquinas. Reading between the lines, we might state that according to the philosopher under discussion, we do not really know what god is- despite knowing that he exists. Therefore, we can use words such as good or just and associated them with god in a direct manner. If god exists, then he is also the primordial entity. This makes him the cause of all the other things.

Therefore, concepts such as "just" or "good" connected to kindness and justice can be evaluated as effects of god, as derivations of and from god. Yet this does not tell us what god is or how he relates to them. It does not matter if the relation of predication which we establish is univocal or equivocal. We could assume that kind and hood are parts of god, yet we do not know to what extent they define him.

We can identify god to good and kind, but these are not his only attributes. In order to better understand the issue, we must underline the importance of language. In Aquinas' view, the words that people can use in order to describe god are neither univocal, nor equivocal- because this leads us nowhere-. Rather their dimension is an analogous one. Nobody has demonstrated that god has a physical existence.

In this regard, when speaking of god, we are speaking of the truth, yet we must do it in a manner which is either analogous or figurative. Just like Anselm, Aquinas was aware of the limitations which the human intellect and language face when they attempt to define god. In fact, one of the most severe challenges occurs in the case of language.

The names which man gives to god or uses in order to explain what he is are never enough in order to grasp his essence in his complexity. Discussing the difference between univocal and equivocal predication, it must be underlined that the concepts we have regarding god and his nature must be univocal. Aquinas actually explains that while the concept must be univocal, the application that we ought to perform is analogical. For example, good and just are concepts which we can define in an univocal manner.

If we were to apply them to god or to humans, their meaning would remain exactly the same. The difference which can be found in the application to god and the application to humans is to be found in the different quality of the subjects. In other words, the individual is finite, while god is infinite. It is obvious that good and just can not be applied in the same way to realities which undergo this fundamental difference.

Aquinas takes the explanation further, stating that while people may share the same attributes with god, they do not share them in the same way. The third issue we are about to discuss refers to the following matters:Anselm's Proslogion is often misinterpreted as a philosophical argument.

What, in fact, is it? What difference does this make to how we read and interpret the work? Anselm claimed that through his Proslogion he was actually providing people with an argument that was powerful enough in order to demonstrate the existence of god. In addition, he argued that his demonstration was valid enough to explain whatever belief we might have regrading god.

Some of the important arguments which he discusses are represented by the existence of god and by the fundamental relevance that language has in trying to define and understand god. From a certain point-of-view, it could be stated that the themes discussed by Anselm can be intertwined in a single argument. On the other hand, taking a look at the manner in which he approached the matter, we realize that it is a bit unusual.

This happens because he uses faith as a major argument in order to support his thesis. While some have argued that this approach is nothing but an argumentation based on blind faith, we have already demonstrated in the first part of the paper that there is a powerful logical development of thought in Anselm's presentation. Therefore, we could state that the Prologion is a meditation, but also a logical demonstration of an argument which has been often taken under debate by philosophers.

It could be stated that his is an attempt to demonstrate one of the most controversial ontological issues, namely the existence of god. Many have looked at Anselm's work as a philosophical argument. We could perhaps look at it as a declaration of faith and explanation of his own personal reasons. The perspective from which we interpret the text is important because it imposes a certain attitude towards it.

If we were to consider it a philosophical argument, then we would understand that Anselm is trying to convince us of the validity of his thesis. If we were to look at it as a personal declaration of faith, then we are likely to detect no persuasion effort whatsoever. In fact, Anselm is far from convincing non-believers of the necessity to believe. His argumentation is not directed at having people believe in god.

The manner in which he establishes the relation between faith and understanding is a clear sign in this direction. One can understand what Anselm is saying and be convinced of it only if he is a believer. At this point, it is safe to say that the importance of faith is fundamental. Under these circumstances, it becomes difficult to accept the view according to which the Proslogion is a philosophical argument.

Were it such, its goal would be to persuade and it would definitely be impossible for it to rely so much an a variable that is so subjective, namely faith. This does not means that the strength of the logical argumentation is not relevant. It actually is. And what becomes even more striking is the power of persuasion that the argumentation in endowed with once the reader does not perceive it as a philosophical argument.

The ontological question is situated in a whole new dimension, in which the intellect is given the possibility to fulfill its capacities only once it has been contaminated with the spiritual. It is true that people are tempted to search for a logical demonstration of god's existence and Anselm's is somewhat convincing. However, he addresses an audience of believers. Therefore, the believers, being what they are, do not really need the logical demonstration in order to justify their faith (otherwise, they would not call themselves in that way).

The last issue of interest for the present discussion is the following: Hence he who possesses the more charity, will see God the more perfectly, and will be the more beatified.(- Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I, q. 12, a. 6, resp.) Our goal is to explain the relationship between knowledge and love according to Thomas. Looking at the quote from Aquinas, we realize that the most important element is charity. Charity is connected with kindness and therefore, with the good.

What Aquinas suggests is that only the person who has a good heart will be able to know god. Not only that, but he will.