To notify me of recent publications, forthcoming events or anything of interest to Anselm scholars, please contact me using the form provided:
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Just as I was beginning to think...
... that the internet was a valuable tool for spreading philosophical understanding, I came across this drivel What do you think of this argument? on 'Yahoo Answers'. It's enough to make a rational man weep.
Monday, 16 May 2011
Recent Publications - May 2011 - Updated
Articles
Bruce Marshall, 'Anselm, Debt, and the Cross' in Nova et Vetera (English edition), 9 (2011) 163-181.
Reviews
Jonathan Sanford, 'Review of Ian Logan, Reading Anselm's Proslogion: The History of Anselm's Argument and its Significance Today' in International Philosophical Quarterly, 51 (2011) 113-115.
Bruce Marshall, 'Anselm, Debt, and the Cross' in Nova et Vetera (English edition), 9 (2011) 163-181.
Reviews
Jonathan Sanford, 'Review of Ian Logan, Reading Anselm's Proslogion: The History of Anselm's Argument and its Significance Today' in International Philosophical Quarterly, 51 (2011) 113-115.
Friday, 29 April 2011
Gareth Matthews 1929-2011
The philosopher, Gareth Matthews, died in Boston, USA, on 17 April. An obituary can be found here. May he rest in peace.
He wrote on Anselm over many years. Here are some articles that I am aware of.
'On conceivability in Anselm and Malcolm' in Philosophical Review, 70 (1961) 110-111
'Aquinas on Saying That God Doesn't Exist' in The Monist, 47 (1962/3) 472-477.
Ian Logan comments: Matthews presents a brief but interesting critique of Aquinas on Anselm and an equally brief and interesting critique of Anselm's argument as a proof that there is a contradiction involved in saying that God does not exist. Matthews argues that since there is no contradiction in saying 'For any given thing, a greater thing can always be conceived' and 'There is nothing than which a greater cannot be conceived', Anselm's argument, as proof of such a contradiction, fails. The problem with Matthews' objection is that it overlooks the uniqueness of 'that than which a greater cannot be thought', which for Anselm is so great that 'definitionally' nothing greater than it can be thought. Thus, talk about something than which a greater can be thought is talk about something other than 'that than which a greater cannot be thought'. The contradiction occurs when the atheist talks not about something else (as they do in the examples Matthews cites) but when they talk about that 'than which a greater cannot be thought', i.e. God.
'Anselm, Augustine and Platonism' in B. Davies & B. Leftow, eds, The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, CUP, Cambridge 2004, 61-83.
'Anselm's argument reconsidered' in The Review of Metaphysics 64 (2010) 31–54 (with L.R. Baker).
Recently Matthews and Baker were engaged in an exchange with Graham Oppy.
Matthew and Baker, 'The ontological argument simplified' in Analysis, 70 (2010) 210-212.
Oppy, 'Objection to a simplified ontological argument' in Analysis, 71 (2011) 105-106
Matthews and Baker, 'Reply to Oppy's fool' in Analysis, 71 (2011) 303-303.
Oppy, 'On behalf of the fool' in Analysis, 71 (2011) 304-306.
He wrote on Anselm over many years. Here are some articles that I am aware of.
'On conceivability in Anselm and Malcolm' in Philosophical Review, 70 (1961) 110-111
'Aquinas on Saying That God Doesn't Exist' in The Monist, 47 (1962/3) 472-477.
Ian Logan comments: Matthews presents a brief but interesting critique of Aquinas on Anselm and an equally brief and interesting critique of Anselm's argument as a proof that there is a contradiction involved in saying that God does not exist. Matthews argues that since there is no contradiction in saying 'For any given thing, a greater thing can always be conceived' and 'There is nothing than which a greater cannot be conceived', Anselm's argument, as proof of such a contradiction, fails. The problem with Matthews' objection is that it overlooks the uniqueness of 'that than which a greater cannot be thought', which for Anselm is so great that 'definitionally' nothing greater than it can be thought. Thus, talk about something than which a greater can be thought is talk about something other than 'that than which a greater cannot be thought'. The contradiction occurs when the atheist talks not about something else (as they do in the examples Matthews cites) but when they talk about that 'than which a greater cannot be thought', i.e. God.
'Anselm, Augustine and Platonism' in B. Davies & B. Leftow, eds, The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, CUP, Cambridge 2004, 61-83.
'Anselm's argument reconsidered' in The Review of Metaphysics 64 (2010) 31–54 (with L.R. Baker).
Recently Matthews and Baker were engaged in an exchange with Graham Oppy.
Matthew and Baker, 'The ontological argument simplified' in Analysis, 70 (2010) 210-212.
Oppy, 'Objection to a simplified ontological argument' in Analysis, 71 (2011) 105-106
Matthews and Baker, 'Reply to Oppy's fool' in Analysis, 71 (2011) 303-303.
Oppy, 'On behalf of the fool' in Analysis, 71 (2011) 304-306.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Recent Publications - March 2011
Articles
Special issue of International Journal for Philosophy of Religion with four papers relating to Anselm from the conference entitled ‘The Concept of God and the Cognitive Science of Religion’, held at the University of Birmingham, UK, 14-16 June 2009.
N. Kendrick, 'The non-Christian influence on Anselm's Proslogion argument' in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 69 (2011) 73-89.
B. Leftow, 'Why perfect being theology?' in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 69 (2011) 103-118.
G. Oppy, 'Perfection, near-perfection, maximality, and Anselmian Theism' in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 69 (2011) 119-138.
E. Wierenga, 'Augustinian perfect being theology and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 69 (2011) 139-151.
Special issue of International Journal for Philosophy of Religion with four papers relating to Anselm from the conference entitled ‘The Concept of God and the Cognitive Science of Religion’, held at the University of Birmingham, UK, 14-16 June 2009.
N. Kendrick, 'The non-Christian influence on Anselm's Proslogion argument' in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 69 (2011) 73-89.
B. Leftow, 'Why perfect being theology?' in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 69 (2011) 103-118.
G. Oppy, 'Perfection, near-perfection, maximality, and Anselmian Theism' in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 69 (2011) 119-138.
E. Wierenga, 'Augustinian perfect being theology and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 69 (2011) 139-151.
Saturday, 19 February 2011
Recent Publications - February 2011 - Updated
Books
L. Mackey, Faith in Order: Natural Theology in the Augustinian Tradition, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto 2011.
Publisher's blurb: From its first statement by Augustine, through its confirmation by Anselm and its spiritualization by Bonaventure, to its final and fundamental formulation by Duns Scotus, the Augustinian idea of order is clearly discernible in the characteristic proofs of God’s existence offered by these philosopher-theologians. Not without reason, since for all of them the being of God is the guarantor – origin, measure, and end – of the order of the cosmos. It is, moreover, the distinctive manner in which each of them defines the problem of theistic proof that reveals most perspicuously the way he conceives the idea of order that informs it. Their several proofs are their individual ways of appropriating their common heritage.
In this posthumous work, Louis Mackey sketches the adventures of the idea of order in the Augustinian tradition. Beginning with the proposition that not all who prove the existence of God are proving the same thing, nor do they understand the proof in the same way, Mackey shows how, even within the bounds of the Augustinian tradition, modes of proof and conceptions of what is to be proven can vary when questioned from within, as by Anselm’s fool, or challenged from without by the philosophy of Aristotle.
Articles
C.H. Conn, 'Anselmian Spacetime: Omnipresence and the Created Order' in Heythrop Journal, 52 (2011) 260-270.
Abstract: For Anselm, the attribute of omnipresence is not merely concerned with where God exists, but with where and when God exists. His account of this attribute thus precipitates a discourse on the nature of space and time: how they are related to God, to one another, and to the rest of the created order. In the course of this analysis Anselm articulates a number of positions which are generally thought to be the sole possession of modernity. In Part One of what follows I argue, first, that Anselm provides us with an analysis of objects which have both spatial and temporal parts, and second, that he provides us with a clear distinction between those objects which persist by enduring through time in their entirety and those which persist by being temporally extended. In Part Two I argue that Anselm's analysis of omnipresence is consciously informed by a conception of spacetime, according to which space and time form a single, four-dimensional manifold in which objects both persist and move.
L. Mackey, Faith in Order: Natural Theology in the Augustinian Tradition, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto 2011.
Publisher's blurb: From its first statement by Augustine, through its confirmation by Anselm and its spiritualization by Bonaventure, to its final and fundamental formulation by Duns Scotus, the Augustinian idea of order is clearly discernible in the characteristic proofs of God’s existence offered by these philosopher-theologians. Not without reason, since for all of them the being of God is the guarantor – origin, measure, and end – of the order of the cosmos. It is, moreover, the distinctive manner in which each of them defines the problem of theistic proof that reveals most perspicuously the way he conceives the idea of order that informs it. Their several proofs are their individual ways of appropriating their common heritage.
In this posthumous work, Louis Mackey sketches the adventures of the idea of order in the Augustinian tradition. Beginning with the proposition that not all who prove the existence of God are proving the same thing, nor do they understand the proof in the same way, Mackey shows how, even within the bounds of the Augustinian tradition, modes of proof and conceptions of what is to be proven can vary when questioned from within, as by Anselm’s fool, or challenged from without by the philosophy of Aristotle.
Articles
C.H. Conn, 'Anselmian Spacetime: Omnipresence and the Created Order' in Heythrop Journal, 52 (2011) 260-270.
Abstract: For Anselm, the attribute of omnipresence is not merely concerned with where God exists, but with where and when God exists. His account of this attribute thus precipitates a discourse on the nature of space and time: how they are related to God, to one another, and to the rest of the created order. In the course of this analysis Anselm articulates a number of positions which are generally thought to be the sole possession of modernity. In Part One of what follows I argue, first, that Anselm provides us with an analysis of objects which have both spatial and temporal parts, and second, that he provides us with a clear distinction between those objects which persist by enduring through time in their entirety and those which persist by being temporally extended. In Part Two I argue that Anselm's analysis of omnipresence is consciously informed by a conception of spacetime, according to which space and time form a single, four-dimensional manifold in which objects both persist and move.
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Recent Publications - January 2011
Articles
L. Schumacher, 'The lost legacy of Anselm's argument: re-thinking the purpose of proofs for the existence of God' in Modern Theology, 27 (2011) 87-101.
Ian Logan comments: Schumacher stresses Anselm's Augustinianism leading her to depart somewhat from Anselm's text, which is why, I suspect, she has to say that 'Anselm implicitly concludes' in introducing a key step in her argument. She should perhaps have addressed what Anselm says in Ep. 136 to Fulk. He argues that rational arguments should be used against the impious so that they can see how irrational their rejection is, whilst Christians should accept on faith and progress to understanding. Schumacher's account addresses the Christian element of Anselm's Proslogion argument, but ignores the role of the unbeliever. The fool of the Proslogion is an unbeliever, and that is not irrelevant to what Anselm is doing in his argument.
Reviews
T.J. Holopainen, 'Review of Ian Logan, Reading Anselm's Proslogion: The History of Anselm's Argument and its Significance Today' in Heythrop Journal, 52 (2011) 129-130.
Ian Logan comments: Holopainen too fails to understand the significance of the role of the unbeliever in the Proslogion.
L. Schumacher, 'The lost legacy of Anselm's argument: re-thinking the purpose of proofs for the existence of God' in Modern Theology, 27 (2011) 87-101.
Ian Logan comments: Schumacher stresses Anselm's Augustinianism leading her to depart somewhat from Anselm's text, which is why, I suspect, she has to say that 'Anselm implicitly concludes' in introducing a key step in her argument. She should perhaps have addressed what Anselm says in Ep. 136 to Fulk. He argues that rational arguments should be used against the impious so that they can see how irrational their rejection is, whilst Christians should accept on faith and progress to understanding. Schumacher's account addresses the Christian element of Anselm's Proslogion argument, but ignores the role of the unbeliever. The fool of the Proslogion is an unbeliever, and that is not irrelevant to what Anselm is doing in his argument.
Reviews
T.J. Holopainen, 'Review of Ian Logan, Reading Anselm's Proslogion: The History of Anselm's Argument and its Significance Today' in Heythrop Journal, 52 (2011) 129-130.
Ian Logan comments: Holopainen too fails to understand the significance of the role of the unbeliever in the Proslogion.
Monday, 6 December 2010
Recent Publications - December 2010
Articles
G.E.M. Gasper, 'Envy, Jealousy, and the Boundaries of Orthodoxy: Anselm of Canterbury and the Genesis of the Proslogion' in Viator-UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies- 41 (2010) 45-68.
Reviews
B. Goebel, 'Review of Hansjurgen Verweyen, Anselm von Canterbury 1033-1109. Denker, Beter, Erzbischof' in Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 117 (2010) 351-356.
G.E.M. Gasper, 'Envy, Jealousy, and the Boundaries of Orthodoxy: Anselm of Canterbury and the Genesis of the Proslogion' in Viator-UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies- 41 (2010) 45-68.
Reviews
B. Goebel, 'Review of Hansjurgen Verweyen, Anselm von Canterbury 1033-1109. Denker, Beter, Erzbischof' in Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 117 (2010) 351-356.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
