Articles
C.I. Barrett, 'A Careful Reading of St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument' in Philosophy and Theology, 23 (2011) ??-??
To notify me of recent publications, forthcoming events or anything of interest to Anselm scholars, please contact me using the form provided:
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Saturday, 17 September 2011
Recent Publications - September 2011
Articles
C. Heathwood, 'The relevance of Kant's objection to Anselm's ontological argument' in Religious Studies, 47 (2011) 345-357.
Ian Logan comments: Oops! This paper shifts from (i) Kant's objection undermines Anselm's argument (btw Kant had not read Anselm), to (ii) a plausible reading of Kant's objection undermines Anselm's argument to (iii) a plausible reading of Kant's objection is relevant to at least one popular and defensible reading of Anselm's argument. In fact, as a reading of Anselm it is not defensible (whether or not it is a defensible ontological argument is a different matter). From the very beginning of this article, the author goes astray - misled as are many non-Latinists by the appalling translation of S.N. Deane, so beloved of American philosophers of religion. The motto is 'Read Anselm before you write about him!' Another suggestion is that before you start taking too seriously the notion that 'existence is not a predicate' (or a first order concept/predicate, etc.) you really ought to read Colin McGinn's Logical Properties, in particular the chapter on 'Existence'.
C. Heathwood, 'The relevance of Kant's objection to Anselm's ontological argument' in Religious Studies, 47 (2011) 345-357.
Ian Logan comments: Oops! This paper shifts from (i) Kant's objection undermines Anselm's argument (btw Kant had not read Anselm), to (ii) a plausible reading of Kant's objection undermines Anselm's argument to (iii) a plausible reading of Kant's objection is relevant to at least one popular and defensible reading of Anselm's argument. In fact, as a reading of Anselm it is not defensible (whether or not it is a defensible ontological argument is a different matter). From the very beginning of this article, the author goes astray - misled as are many non-Latinists by the appalling translation of S.N. Deane, so beloved of American philosophers of religion. The motto is 'Read Anselm before you write about him!' Another suggestion is that before you start taking too seriously the notion that 'existence is not a predicate' (or a first order concept/predicate, etc.) you really ought to read Colin McGinn's Logical Properties, in particular the chapter on 'Existence'.
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Recent Publications - August 2011 - Updated
Articles
Y. Nagasawa, 'Anselmian Theism' in Philosophy Compass, 6 (2011) 564-571.
Ian Logan comments: In this defense of what Nagasawa refers to as 'Anselmian Theism', he writes: "Anselm deļ¬nes God as ‘something than which no greater can be thought (conceived)’." Well, Anselm didn't think he had defined God. For the dialectical tradition in which Anselm operated, if God could be defined, He would be the differentiated species of a genus and therefore would not be God. The key feature of Anselmian theism (if there were such a thing) would be the notion that God is greater than whatever we can think about Him. In fact, He must be greater than can be thought, if He is that than which a greater cannot be thought, since otherwise we could think of something greater than Him, i.e. something that is so great it is greater than can be thought. If we are going to discuss Anselm then we need to take account of such points. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the term 'Anselmian' should be taken to mean.
Y. Nagasawa, 'Anselmian Theism' in Philosophy Compass, 6 (2011) 564-571.
Ian Logan comments: In this defense of what Nagasawa refers to as 'Anselmian Theism', he writes: "Anselm deļ¬nes God as ‘something than which no greater can be thought (conceived)’." Well, Anselm didn't think he had defined God. For the dialectical tradition in which Anselm operated, if God could be defined, He would be the differentiated species of a genus and therefore would not be God. The key feature of Anselmian theism (if there were such a thing) would be the notion that God is greater than whatever we can think about Him. In fact, He must be greater than can be thought, if He is that than which a greater cannot be thought, since otherwise we could think of something greater than Him, i.e. something that is so great it is greater than can be thought. If we are going to discuss Anselm then we need to take account of such points. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the term 'Anselmian' should be taken to mean.
Saturday, 6 August 2011
Recent Publications - August 2011
Articles
T.A. Heslop, 'St Anselm, Church Reform, and the Politics of Art' in Anglo-Norman Studies, 33 (2011) 103-126.
On 'the politically charged glazing scheme that Archbishop Anselm installed at Canterbury cathedral'.
T.A. Heslop, 'St Anselm, Church Reform, and the Politics of Art' in Anglo-Norman Studies, 33 (2011) 103-126.
On 'the politically charged glazing scheme that Archbishop Anselm installed at Canterbury cathedral'.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
'AC Grayling's private university is odious'
An excellent polemic against Grayling's private 'atheist seminary' by Terry Eagleton : AC Grayling's private university is odious.
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Recent Publications - June 2011
Articles
J. Whitman, 'The Other Side of Omnipotence: Anselm on the Dialectics of Divine Power' in Harvard Theological Review, 104 (2011) 129-146.
Reviews
P. Madigan, 'Review of Benedicta Ward, Anselm of Canterbury: his Life and Legacy' in Heythrop Journal, 52 (2011) 473.
J. Whitman, 'The Other Side of Omnipotence: Anselm on the Dialectics of Divine Power' in Harvard Theological Review, 104 (2011) 129-146.
Reviews
P. Madigan, 'Review of Benedicta Ward, Anselm of Canterbury: his Life and Legacy' in Heythrop Journal, 52 (2011) 473.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Will there be a place for Anselm...
... in the curriculum of London's new atheist seminary? If so, let's hope it is free of the idiotic treatment of Anselm by one of the seminary's founders, R. Dawkins. See my previous post: The most stupid account of Anselm's argument ever?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
