The Gaunilo Argument

To what extent does Gaunilos criticism of Anselms channel succeed in demonstrating that the leaning fails? Gaunilo, a Benedictine monk and contemporary of St Anselm was the first to raise objections to Anselms report that beau ideal make ups by definition, pleading within On behalf of the Fool that Anselms transmission line was not logical and needed to be discredited. Gaunilo celebratedly claimed that Anselms closing that the non- earthly concern of beau ideal is unintelligible ceasenot show that divinity necessarily exists.Firstly, Gaunilo argued that the fool quality featured in Psalm 531 may throw away been referring not only to god but to any number of opposite social functions that do not exist in truth. Gaunilo utilizes the example of someone comprehend nigh a person from gossip he suggested that the gossip was unreliable and the person and event were made up to trick you. As an view later(prenominal) developed by Middle Age philosophers who believed you cannot prove from what is tell (de dicto) what exists in reality (de re), Gaunilo argued that you cannot define the design of God into initiation.The about famous argument posed by Gaunilo was that of a perfect island which can step in the idea of God in the Ontological argument. Gaunilo argued that anyone can think of the most perfect paradise island for the notion of the most perfect island exists as a idea in our understanding. Gaunilo developed his argument by employing Anselms logic to say that for such an island to exist in our minds means that this is inferior to the equal island existing in reality. The island must at that placefore exist in reality as it cannot possess the inferiority that comes from it being only a image if it is to be the most perfect island.While the most perfect island can be conceived of, this does not mean it exists we cannot bring something into existence just be delineate it as superlative. Furthermore, Gaunilo concluded that Anselm canno t demonstrate that the idea of God as the sterling(prenominal) possible being means that God exists in reality. When someone tells me there is such an island, I tardily understand what is being saidhowever, he does on to saythis islandactually exists somewhere in realityI would think he were joking. John Hick 1990) Despite the exigent credibility of this argument recognized by Anselm who went on to including it in later versions of his own book, Anslem was able to respond to the argument using the claim that Gods existence is necessary. Anslem argued that though Gaunilo was right in the case of the island, the akin objections were not valid when the ontological argument was apply of God, because the island has contingent existence, whereas Gods existence is necessary.The ontological argument remains credible, Anselm argued, because it applies only to God who exists necessarily and uniquely. Within his Liber Apologeticus Contra Guanilonem, Anselm rejects Gaunilos argument that t he islands existence can be proved from the idea of it alone for the island is not a thing which can be conceived not to exist. Moreover, philosopher Alvin Plantinga suggested that Anselm could also argue that there is no intrinsic maximum to the qualities of scenery that the Gaunilos island could have however swell an island is, there could always be one better.Further discrediting the argument posed by Gaunilo, both St Thomas Aquinas and Kant have posed more productive and valid arguments in response to Anselms ontological argument. St Thomas Aquinas, dissimilar Gaunilo, seeks to undermine Anselms faith seeking understanding as he was firmly convinced of the existence of God himself. Aquinas rejected the claim that the existence of God is self-evident human beings cannot fully understand the personality of God, thus God exists is not an analytic statement.Although we are able to court an understanding of God, God will always remain unknowable to the impermanent human mind n ow because we do not know the mall of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us, but needs to be demonstrate by things that are more known to us (Summa Theologiae, 1a). Aquinas used the example of the existence of truth to support his argument, suggesting that no one would be able to accept the truth of the statement truth does not exist unless truth actually existed.though it is impossible to have a mental model of the non-existence of truth, it is not a contradiction to have a mental concept of the non-existence of God, because people are able to, including the fool who says there is no God. Kants argument in opposition to Anslems ontological argument stands as more credible than that posed by Gaunilo as it successfully reputed the argument, diminishing the extent to which the ontological argument is arguably facilitate valid. Kant argued that existence is not a predicate for it does not tell us anything about that object that would help us to identify it in any way.When we are thinking of God we are thinking of a concept and whether this concept is actualized cannot be resolved simply be adding existence to the different predicates ascribing to the concept. Though the argument could be responded to with the knowledge that whilst everything exists contingently, God exists necessarily and this necessary existence can only be a predicate of God, a skeptic could easily counter this argument by pointing out the circular temperament of the ontological argument for we must accept that God exists necessarily in order to come to the conclusion that God exists necessarily.Though Gaunilos argument even-tempered holds some value as it could be employed by an unbeliever to support their opposition to the theory, the ease by which Anselm was able to counter the argument limits its success in demonstrating the failure of the ontological argument. Later arguments posed by Aquinas and Kant further limit the extent to which Gaunilos argument is still credible as they offer more successful and more widely accepted oppositions to the ontological argument, posing questions which could not be so easily countered by a response from Anselm. Beth Albuery