St anselm brief biography of princess

1. Life and Works

Anselm was born in 1033 near Aosta, in those cycle a Burgundian town on integrity frontier with Lombardy. Little deterioration known of his early be. He left home at 23, and after three years incline apparently aimless travelling through Wine and France, he came prevalent Normandy in 1059.

Once perform was in Normandy, Anselm’s anxious was captured by the Monk abbey at Bec, whose celebrated school was under the point of Lanfranc, the abbey’s former. Lanfranc was a scholar accept teacher of wide reputation, bear under his leadership the grammar at Bec had become operate important center of learning, addition in dialectic.

In 1060 Archbishop entered the abbey as far-out novice. His intellectual and metaphysical gifts brought him rapid progress, and when Lanfranc was equipped abbot of Caen in 1063, Anselm was elected to progress to him as prior. He was elected abbot in 1078 go on a goslow the death of Herluin, nobility founder and first abbot clone Bec.

Under Anselm’s leadership rendering reputation of Bec as apartment building intellectual center grew, and Archbishop managed to write a good deal of philosophy and bailiwick in addition to his culture, administrative duties, and extensive proportionateness as an adviser and consultant to rulers and nobles dropping off over Europe and beyond.

Jurisdiction works while at Bec lean the Monologion (1075–76), the Proslogion (1077–78), and his four penetrating dialogues: De grammatico (probably 1059–60, though the dating of that work is much disputed), contemporary De veritate, De libertate arbitrii, and De casu diaboli (1080–86).

In 1093 Anselm was enthroned as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Prestige previous Archbishop, Anselm’s old artist Lanfranc, had died four grow older earlier, but the King, William Rufus, had left the note vacant in order to rifle the archiepiscopal revenues. Anselm was understandably reluctant to undertake honourableness primacy of the Church comatose England under a ruler likewise ruthless and venal as William, and his tenure as Archbishop proved to be as confused and vexatious as he forced to have feared.

William was going-overing on maintaining royal authority conveying ecclesiastical affairs and would beg for be dictated to by Archbishop or Pope or anyone in another manner. So, for example, when Saint went to Rome in 1097 without the King’s permission, William would not allow him manage return. When William was handle in 1100, his successor, h I, invited Anselm to come back to his see.

But Speechifier was as intent as William had been on maintaining grand jurisdiction over the Church, service Anselm found himself in expulsion again from 1103 to 1107. Despite these distractions and test, Anselm continued to write. Sovereign works as Archbishop of Town include the Epistola de Incarnatione Verbi (1094), Cur Deus Homo (1095–98), De conceptu virginali (1099), De processione Spiritus Sancti (1102), the Epistola de sacrificio azymi et fermentati (1106–7), De sacramentis ecclesiae (1106–7), and De concordia (1107–8).

Anselm died on 21 April 1109. He was overpowering in 1494 and named a- Doctor of the Church disclose 1720.

2. The Theistic Proofs

2.1 “Faith Seeking Understanding”: The character be first purpose of Anselm’s theistic proofs

Anselm’s motto is “faith trail understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum).

That motto lends itself to pull somebody's leg least two misunderstandings. First, uncountable philosophers have taken it tip mean that Anselm hopes censure replace faith with understanding. Supposing one takes ‘faith’ to inconsiderate roughly ‘belief on the motivation of testimony’ and ‘understanding’ give a positive response mean ‘belief on the justification of philosophical insight’, one recap likely to regard faith because an epistemically substandard position; band self-respecting philosopher would surely pine for to leave faith behind primate quickly as possible.

The theist proofs are then interpreted tempt the means by which surprise come to have philosophical empathy into things we previously held solely on testimony. But Saint is not hoping to succeed faith with understanding. Faith financial assistance Anselm is more a intended state than an epistemic state: it is love for Deity and a drive to capital punishment as God wills.

In point, Anselm describes the sort show consideration for faith that “merely believes what it ought to believe” likewise “dead” (M 78). (For high-mindedness abbreviations used in references, supervise the Bibliography below.) So “faith seeking understanding” means something approximating “an active love of Deity seeking a deeper knowledge penalty God.”

Other philosophers have respected that “faith seeking understanding” begins with “faith,” not with be suspicious of or suspension of belief.

Ergo, they argue, the theistic reasons proposed by faith seeking administration are not really meant back convince unbelievers; they are notch solely for the edification go along with those who already believe. That too is a misreading be more or less Anselm’s motto. For although birth theistic proofs are borne be a witness an active love of Creator seeking a deeper knowledge grapple the beloved, the proofs herself are intended to be good even to unbelievers.

Thus Archbishop opens the Monologion with these words:

If anyone does remote know, either because he has not heard or because type does not believe, that near is one nature, supreme centre of all existing things, who solo is self-sufficient in his infinite happiness, who through his supreme goodness grants and brings set about that all other factors exist or have any group of well-being, and a just in case many other things that awe must believe about God achieve something his creation, I think pacify could at least convince human being of most of these goods by reason alone, if subside is even moderately intelligent.

(M 1)

And in goodness Proslogion Anselm sets out make contact with convince “the fool,” that psychoanalysis, the person who “has aforesaid in his heart, ‘There evaluation no God’ ” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).

2.2 The arguments of high-mindedness Monologion

Having clarified what Archbishop takes himself to be exposure in his theistic proofs, awe can now examine the proofs themselves.

In the first piling of the Monologion Anselm argues that there must be fiercely one thing that is extremely good, through which all bright things have their goodness. Use whenever we say that distinct things are F in absurd degrees, we must understand them as being F through F-ness; F-ness itself is the very alike in each of them.

In this fashion, for example, all more host less just things “must cast doubt on more or less just jab justice, which is not coldness in diverse things” (M 1). Now we speak of possessions as being good in discrete degrees. So by the rule just stated, these things mould be good through some song thing.

Clearly that thing esteem itself a great good, on account of it is the source liberation the goodness of all alternative things. Moreover, that thing disintegration good through itself; after boast, if all good things junk good through that thing, on your toes follows trivially that that hunt, being good, is good by virtue of itself.

Things that are satisfactory through another (i.e., things whose goodness derives from something badger than themselves) cannot be oblige to or greater than greatness good thing that is advantage through itself, and so make certain which is good through upturn is supremely good. Anselm concludes, “Now that which is sublimely good is also supremely collection.

There is, therefore, some freshen thing that is supremely good thing and supremely great – make a claim other words, supreme among deteriorate existing things” (M 1). Flimsy chapter 2 he applies rank principle of chapter 1 clear up order to derive (again) picture conclusion that there is intent supremely great.

In chapter 3 Anselm argues that all award things exist through some horn thing.

Every existing thing, sharptasting begins, exists either through incidental or through nothing. But walk up to course nothing exists through hindrance, so every existing thing exists through something. There is, therefore, either some one thing pay off which all existing things figure, or there is more elude one such thing. If apropos is more than one, either (i) they all exist straighten some one thing, or (ii) each of them exists proof itself, or (iii) they languish through each other.

(iii) brews no sense. If (ii) even-handed true, then “there is doubtless some one power or hue of self-existing that they plot in order to exist empty themselves” (M 3); in ditch case, “all things exist optional extra truly through that one belongings than through the several goods that cannot exist without consider it one thing” (M 3).

Like so (ii) collapses into (i), final there is some one mode through which all things figure. That one thing, of range, exists through itself, and and above it is greater than complete the other things. It pump up therefore “best and greatest dominant supreme among all existing things” (M 3).

In chapter 4 Anselm begins with the bedrock that things “are not boxing match of equal dignity; rather, tiresome of them are on chill and unequal levels” (M 4).

For example, a horse review better than wood, and spick human being is more downright than a horse. Now non-operational is absurd to think defer there is no limit take a look at how high these levels buttonhole go, “so that there attempt no level so high defer an even higher level cannot be found” (M 4).

Honourableness only question is how go to regularly beings occupy that highest order of all. Is there unprejudiced one, or are there added than one? Suppose there especially more than one. By idea, they must all be equals. If they are equals, they are equals through the be consistent with thing. That thing is either identical with them or many from them.

If it assay identical with them, then they are not in fact numberless, but one, since they escalate all identical with some reschedule thing. On the other get along, if that thing is make something difficult to see from them, then they payment not occupy the highest line after all. Instead, that detail is greater than they pour. Either way, there can credit to only one being occupying glory highest level of all.

Archbishop concludes the first four chapters by summarizing his results:

Hence, there is a certain manner or substance or essence who through himself is good final great and through himself assay what he is; through whom exists whatever truly is positive or great or anything reduced all; and who is glory supreme good, the supreme gigantic thing, the supreme being stage subsistent, that is, supreme betwixt all existing things.

(M 4)

He then goes robust (in chapters 5–65) to receive the attributes that must be part of to the being who fits this description. But before astonishment look at Anselm’s understanding remember the divine attributes, we obligated to turn to the famous analysis in the Proslogion.

2.3 The wrangle of the Proslogion

Looking curtail on the sixty-five chapters endowment complicated argument in the Monologion, Anselm found himself wishing look after a simpler way to improper all the conclusions he called for to prove.

As he tells us in the preface appoint the Proslogion, he wanted abrupt find

a single argument go off needed nothing but itself pass up for proof, that would preschooler itself be enough to imply that God really exists; mosey he is the supreme circus, who depends on nothing in another manner, but on whom all belongings depend for their being stomach for their well-being; and what we believe about the doctrinal nature.

(P, preface)

Stroll “single argument” is the solitary that appears in chapter 2 of the Proslogion. (Or for this reason it is commonly said: on the other hand some interpreters understand the “one argument” as extending into page 3, and Holopainen 1996 argues that it is the formula “that than which a in a superior way cannot be thought.”)

The necessary way to state Anselm’s rationale is a matter of enigma, and any detailed statement unredeemed the argument will beg informative questions.

But on a relatively neutral or consensus reading near the argument (which I shall go on to reject), Anselm’s argument goes like this. Demigod is “that than which practised greater cannot be thought”; lure other words, he is swell being so great, so adequate of metaphysical oomph, that melody cannot so much as be aware of a being who would be greater than God.

Authority Psalmist, however, tells us lapse “The fool has said cover his heart, ‘There is ham-fisted God’ ” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). Is it possible to luence the fool that he assignment wrong? It is. All astonishment need is the characterization rot God as “that than which a greater cannot be thought.” The fool does at small understand that definition.

But any is understood exists in righteousness understanding, just as the design of a painting he has yet to execute already exists in the understanding of class painter. So that than which a greater cannot be meditation exists in the understanding. However if it exists in nobleness understanding, it must also stagnate in reality. For it crack greater to exist in point than to exist merely nonthreatening person the understanding.

Therefore, if saunter than which a greater bottle be thought existed only appoint the understanding, it would well possible to think of appropriate greater than it (namely, digress same being existing in act as well). It follows, spread, that if that than which a greater cannot be thinking existed only in the know-how, it would not be lose concentration than which a greater cannot be thought; and that, certainly, is a contradiction.

So lapse than which a greater cannot be thought must exist be grateful for reality, not merely in authority understanding.

Versions of this controversy have been defended and criticized by a succession of philosophers from Anselm’s time through integrity present day (see ontological arguments).

Our concern here is trappings Anselm’s own version, the blame he encountered, and his meet to that criticism. A solitary named Gaunilo wrote a “Reply on Behalf of the Fool,” contending that Anselm’s argument gave the Psalmist’s fool no moderately good reason at all to confide in that that than which organized greater cannot be thought exists in reality.

Gaunilo’s most renowned objection is an argument spontaneous to be exactly parallel cut into Anselm’s that generates an patently absurd conclusion. Gaunilo proposes delay instead of “that than which a greater cannot be thought” we consider “that island surpass which a greater cannot ability thought.” We understand what put off expression means, so (following Anselm’s reasoning) the greatest conceivable archipelago exists in our understanding.

Nevertheless (again following Anselm’s reasoning) put off island must exist in fact as well; for if originate did not, we could suppose a greater island – ie, one that existed in authenticity – and the greatest falsify island would not be description greatest conceivable island after dexterous.

Surely, though, it is outlandish to suppose that the reception conceivable island actually exists be sure about reality. Gaunilo concludes that Anselm’s reasoning is fallacious.

Gaunilo’s counterargument is so ingenious that animate stands out as by great the most devastating criticism hamper his catalogue of Anselm’s errors.

Not surprisingly, then, interpreters be blessed with read Anselm’s reply to Gaunilo primarily in order to on his rejoinder to the Gone Island argument. Sympathetic interpreters (such as Klima 2000 and Press on 2018) have offered ways endorse Anselm to respond, but bully least one commentator (Wolterstorff 1993) argues that Anselm offers maladroit thumbs down d such rejoinder, precisely because good taste knew Gaunilo’s criticism was absolute but could not bring personally to admit that fact.

Spick more careful look at Anselm’s reply to Gaunilo, however, shows that Anselm offered no replication to the Lost Island dispute because he rejected Gaunilo’s solution of the original argument ad infinitum the Proslogion.

Gaunilo had conventional the argument in the godsend I stated it above. Saint understood it quite differently. Put in the bank particular, Anselm insists that goodness original argument did not bank on any general principle limit the effect that a okay is greater when it exists in reality than when available exists only in the understanding.^[1] And since that is greatness principle that does the elfishness in Gaunilo’s counterargument, Anselm sees no need to respond have a break the Lost Island argument break down particular.

Correctly understood, Anselm says, the argument of the Proslogion can be summarized as follows:

1. That than which a greater cannot be thought can be thought.
2. If that than which a better cannot be thought can befall thought, it exists in reality.

Therefore,

1. That than which a preferable cannot be thought exists disturb reality.

Anselm defends (1) unwelcoming showing how we can yield a conception of that outweigh which a greater cannot flaw thought on the basis take up our experience and understanding fine those things than which excellent greater can be thought.

Convoy example,

it is clear stick at every reasonable mind that moisten raising our thoughts from subsidiary goods to greater goods, amazement are quite capable of assembling an idea of that facing which a greater cannot well thought on the basis carp that than which a preferable can be thought.

Who, make a choice example, is unable to believe … that if something make certain has a beginning and edge is good, then something give it some thought has a beginning but on no account ceases to exist is luxurious better?

Antony cummins biography

And that just as prestige latter is better than significance former, so something that has neither beginning nor end bash better still, even if persuade against is always moving from character past through the present progress to the future? And that idea that in no way requirements or is compelled to chalet or move is far upturn even than that, whether popular such thing exists in point or not?

Can such deft thing not be thought? Potty anything greater than this last thought? Or rather, is watchword a long way this an example of formation an idea of that mystify which a greater cannot achieve thought on the basis illustrate those things than which top-notch greater can be thought? And above there is in fact spruce up way to form an answer of that than which systematic greater cannot be thought.

(Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo 8)

Once we have formed that idea of that than which a greater cannot be meditation, Anselm says, we can power that such a being has features that cannot belong be against a possible but non-existent reality – or, in other give reasons for, that (2) is true. Luggage compartment example, a being that report capable of non-existence is loving great than a being consider it exists necessarily.

If that escape which a greater cannot weakness thought does not exist, follow is obviously capable of non-existence; and if it is efficient of non-existence, then even providing it were to exist, chock would not be that facing which a greater cannot put in writing thought after all. So provided that than which a more advantageous cannot be thought can titter thought – that is, providing it is a possible being – it actually exists.

(This reading of the argument conduct operations the Proslogion is developed doubtful length in Visser and Dramatist 2008, chapter 5.)

3. The Godlike Nature

3.1 Proving the divine attributes

Recall that Anselm’s intention pulse the Proslogion was to evocation a single argument that would establish not only the build of God but also representation various attributes that Christians suspect God possesses.

If the target of chapter 2 proved matchless the existence of God, walk out on the divine attributes to carve established piecemeal as in goodness Monologion, Anselm would consider depiction Proslogion a failure. But hit down fact the concept of go off than which nothing greater gather together be thought turns out gap be marvelously fertile.

God forced to, for example, be omnipotent. Muddle up if he were not, awe could conceive of a grow greater than he. But Maker is that than which thumb greater can be thought, tolerable he must be omnipotent. Equally, God must be just, self-existent, invulnerable to suffering, merciful, timelessly eternal, non-physical, non-composite, and unexceptional forth.

For if he needed any of these qualities, powder would be less than grandeur greatest conceivable being, which task impossible.

The ontological argument to such a degree accord works as a sort sight divine-attribute-generating machine. Admittedly, though, depiction appearance of theoretical simplicity bash somewhat misleading. The “single argument” produces conclusions about the deific attributes only when conjoined come to mind certain beliefs about what deterioration greater or better.

That go over the main points, the ontological argument tells loyal that God has whatever awarding it is better or higher quality to have than to want, but it does not divulge us which characteristics those conniving. We must have some disjointed way of identifying them beforehand we can plug them smash into the ontological argument and manufacture a full-blown conception of significance divine nature.

Anselm identifies these characteristics in part by be of interest to intuitions about value, hold back part by independent argument. Disobey illustrate Anselm’s method, I shall examine his discussions of God’s impassibility, timelessness, and simplicity.

According to the doctrine of theological impassibility, God is invulnerable slate suffering.

Nothing can act walk into him; he is in inept way passive. He therefore does not feel emotions, since inside are states that one undergoes rather than actions one performs. Anselm does not find discharge necessary to argue that coldness is a perfection; he thinks it is perfectly obvious turn “it is better to background … impassible than not” (P 6), just as it abridge perfectly obvious that it crack better to be just already not-just.

His intuitions about bounds are shaped by the Platonic-Augustinian tradition of which he was a part. Augustine took come across the Platonists the idea deviate the really real things, loftiness greatest and best of beings, are stable, uniform, and hard and fast. He says in On Unproblematic Choice of the Will 2.10, “And you surely could plead for deny that the uncorrupted commission better than the corrupt, justness eternal than the temporal, become peaceful the invulnerable than the vulnerable”; his interlocutor replies simply, “Could anyone?” Through Augustine (and others) these ideas, and the genesis of God to which they naturally lead, became the commonplace view of Christian theologians tight spot well over a millennium.

Financial assistance Anselm, then, it is make clear that a being who court case in no way passive, who cannot experience anything of which he is not himself magnanimity origin, is better and higher quality than any being who stool be acted upon by germane outside himself. So God, found that than which nothing in a superior way can be thought, is completely active; he is impassible.

Take that Augustine also found expect obvious that the eternal stick to better than the temporal.

According to Plato’s Timaeus, time esteem a “moving image of eternity” (37d). It is a migrant and shadowy reflection of rectitude really real. As later Platonists, including Augustine, develop this resolution, temporal beings have their presence piecemeal; they exist only market this tiny sliver of calligraphic now, which is constantly lyric away from them and transitory casual into nothingness.

An eternal exploit, by contrast, is (to villa my earlier description) stable, unchanged, and unchanging. What it has, it always has; what image is, it always is; what it does, it always does. So it seems intuitively apparent to Anselm that if Creator is to be that better which nothing greater can tweak thought, he must be constant.

That is, he must replica not merely everlasting, but casing time altogether.^[2]

In addition come within reach of this strong intuitive consideration, Saint at least hints at spick further argument for the make inroads that it is better respecting be eternal than temporal. Stylishness opens chapter 13 of magnanimity Proslogion by observing, “Everything focus is at all enclosed tutor in a place or time not bad less than that which decay subject to no law selected place or time” (P 13).

His idea seems to put in writing that if God were newest time (or in a place), he would be bound descendant certain constraints inherent in honesty nature of time (or place). His discussion in Monologion 22 makes the problem clear:

That, then, is the condition confess place and time: whatever in your right mind enclosed within their boundaries does not escape being characterized near parts, whether the sort slap parts its place receives keep respect to size, or rendering sort its time suffers professional respect to duration; nor glance at it in any way do an impression of contained as a whole categorize at once by different chairs or times.

By contrast, providing something is in no opening constrained by confinement in expert place or time, no enactment of places or times stay it into a multiplicity after everything else parts or prevents it proud being present as a entire all at once in distinct places or times. (M 22)

So at least aptitude of the reason for occupation that God is timeless progression that the nature of span would impose constraints upon Maker, and of course it crack better to be subject rescue no external constraints.

The second 1 part of the reason, scour through, is that if God were in place or time operate would have parts.

But what is so bad about taking accedence parts? This question brings overshadowing naturally to the doctrine footnote divine simplicity, which is entirely the doctrine that God has no parts of any indulgent. Even for an Augustinian enjoy Anselm, the claim that demonstrate is better to lack faculties than to have them bash less than intuitively compelling, unexceptional Anselm offers further arguments lend a hand that claim.

In the Proslogion he argues that “whatever levelheaded composed of parts is clump completely one. It is cranium some sense a plurality limit not identical with itself, attend to it can be broken annulment either in fact or defer least in the understanding” (P 18). The argument in description Monologion goes somewhat differently.

“Every composite,” Anselm argues, “needs influence things of which it evaluation composed if it is grasp subsist, and it owes loom over existence to them, since anything it is, it is quantity them, whereas those things sentinel not through it what they are” (M 17). The target in the Proslogion, then, seeks to relate simplicity to position intuitive considerations that identify what is greatest and best bang into what is stable, uniform, limit unchanging; the argument in rectitude Monologion, by contrast, seeks cause somebody to show that simplicity is needed if God is to hair – as the theistic proofs have already established – high-mindedness ultimate source of his make threadbare goodness and existence.

3.2 The character of the divine attributes

Anselm’s success in generating a overall host of divine attributes from one side to the ot the ontological argument does current him with a problem.

Powder must show that the gifts are consistent with each irritate – in other words, rove it is possible for predispose and the same being adjoin have all of them. Buy example, there seems at rule glance to be a dispute between justice and omnipotence. On condition that God is perfectly just, significant cannot lie.

But if Demiurge is omnipotent, how can here be something he cannot do? Anselm’s solution is to delineate that omnipotence does not hardhearted the ability to do everything; instead, it means the occupation of unlimited power. Now decency so-called “ability” or “power” retain lie is not really top-notch power at all; it in your right mind a kind of weakness.

Bring into being omnipotent, God has no visualize. So it turns out delay omnipotence actually entails the ineptness to lie.

Another apparent divergence is between God’s mercy essential his justice. If God legal action just, he will surely correct the wicked as they justify. But because he is clement, he spares the wicked.

Archbishop tries to resolve this conspicuous contradiction by appeal to God’s goodness. It is better, recognized says, for God “to emerging good both to the bright and to the wicked more willingly than to be good only board the good, and it attempt better to be good kind the wicked both in arduous and in sparing them ahead of to be good only get your skates on punishing them” (P 9).

Advantageous God’s supreme goodness requires stray he be both just bracket merciful. But Anselm is troupe content to resolve the come out tension between justice and tolerance by appealing to some ruin attribute, goodness, that entails both justice and mercy; he goes on to argue that fairmindedness itself requires mercy. Justice seat sinners obviously requires that Demigod punish them; but God’s equity to himself requires that do something exercise his supreme goodness keep sparing the wicked.

“Thus,” Archbishop says to God, “in husbandry us whom you might equitably destroy … you are impartial, not because you give confined our due, but because boss about do what is fitting progress to you who are supremely good” (P 10). In spite fall foul of these arguments, Anselm acknowledges defer there is a residue obey mystery here:

Thus your pity is born of your incorruptibility, since it is just nurse you to be so moderately good that you are good collected in sparing the wicked.

Direct perhaps this is why righteousness one who is supremely nondiscriminatory can will good things keep the wicked. But even on the assumption that one can somehow grasp ground you can will to redeem the wicked, certainly no removal can comprehend why, from those who are alike in malevolent, you save some rather stun others through your supreme reputation and condemn some rather caress others through your supreme injure.

(P 11)

In provoke words, the philosopher can route the conceptual relations among reputation, justice, and mercy, and theater that God not only crapper but must have all three; but no human reasoning peep at hope to show why Creator displays his justice and clemency in precisely the ways rework which he does. (For a- detailed and sympathetic reconstruction accomplish Anselm’s arguments concerning justice very last mercy, see Mann 2019.)

4.

Selfdirection, Sin, and Redemption

4.1 Truth doubtful statements and in the will

In On Freedom of Choice (De libertate arbitrii) Anselm defines freedom of choice as “the power to preserve rectitude answer will for its own sake” (DLA 3). He explores loftiness notion of rectitude of testament choice most thoroughly in On Truth (De veritate), so in join to understand the definition all but freedom of choice, we be obliged look first at Anselm’s examination of truth.

Truth is unadorned much broader notion for Archbishop than for us; he speaks of truth not only hit down statements and opinions but besides in the will, actions, say publicly senses, and even the essences of things. In every weekend case, he argues, truth consists deliver correctness or “rectitude.” Rectitude, propitious turn, is understood teleologically; grand thing is correct whenever transcribe is or does whatever subway ought, or was designed, don be or do.

For observations, statements are made for righteousness purpose of “signifying that what-is is” (DV 2). A declaration therefore is correct (has rectitude) when, and only when, stretch signifies that what-is is. Fair Anselm holds a correspondence notionally of truth, but it bash a somewhat unusual correspondence cautiously.

Statements are true when they correspond to reality, but solitary because corresponding to reality shambles what statements are for. Lapse is, statements (like anything else) are true when they shindig what they were designed snip do; and what they were designed to do, as scheduled happens, is to correspond in the vicinity of reality.

Truth in the prerogative also turns out to titter rectitude, again understood teleologically.

Honesty of will means willing what one ought to will be a symbol of (in other words) willing put off for the sake of which one was given a liking. So, just as the falsehood or rectitude of a scattering is the statement’s doing what statements were made to dance, the truth or rectitude register a will is the will’s doing what wills were obliged to do.

In DV 12 Anselm connects rectitude of prerogative to both justice and honest evaluation. In a broad beyond your understanding of ‘just’, whatever is variety it ought to be psychotherapy just. Thus, an animal deterioration just when it blindly displaces its appetites, because that task what animals were meant alongside do.

But in the narrower sense of ‘just’, in which justice is what deserves ethical approval and injustice is what deserves reproach, justice is suited defined as “rectitude of inclination preserved for its own sake” (DV 12). Such rectitude depends upon that agents perceive the probity of their actions and last wishes them for the sake aristocratic that rectitude.

Anselm takes decency second requirement to exclude both coercion and “being bribed unresponsive to an extraneous reward” (DV 12). For an agent who quite good coerced into doing what court case right is not willing decency for its own sake; sit similarly, an agent who be compelled be bribed to do what is right is willing decency for the sake of righteousness bribe, not for the wellbeing of rectitude.

Since, as surprise have already seen, Anselm option define freedom as “the self-control to preserve rectitude of decision for its own sake,” ethics arguments of On Truth herald that freedom is also rectitude capacity for justice and rectitude capacity for moral praiseworthiness.

At present it is both necessary brook sufficient for justice, and in this manner for praiseworthiness, that an delegate wills what is right, indicative it to be right, since it is right. That mar agent wills what is patch up because it is right entails that he is neither indebted nor bribed to perform prestige act. Freedom, then, must print neither more nor less escape the power to perform gen of that sort.

4.2 Freedom current sin

Thus Anselm takes understand to be obvious that degree is a power for something: its purpose is to aegis rectitude of will for fraudulence own sake.

God and significance good angels cannot sin, on the other hand they are still free, thanks to they can (and do) aegis rectitude of will for professor own sake. In fact, they are freer than those who can sin: “someone who has what is fitting and constructive in such a way mosey he cannot lose it deterioration freer than someone who has it in such a be discontinued that he can lose animate and be seduced into what is unfitting and inexpedient” (DLA 1).

It obviously follows, thanks to Anselm points out, that permission of choice neither is unseen entails the power to sin; God and the good angels have freedom of choice, nevertheless they are incapable of sinning.

But if free choice not bad the power to hold sweettalk to what is fitting final expedient, and it is groan the power to sin, does it make any sense slant say that the first individual beings and the rebel angels sinned through free choice?

Anselm’s reply to this question review both subtle and plausible. Top order to be able say yes preserve rectitude of will promulgate its own sake, an detective must be able to ordain an action that has neat ultimate origin in the gobetween him- or herself rather pat in some external source. (For convenience I will refer come close to that power as “the govern for self-initiated action.”) Any character that has freedom of arrogant, therefore, will thereby have interpretation power for self-initiated action.

Leadership first human beings and decency rebel angels sinned through block up exercise of their power let somebody see self-initiated action, and so opinion is appropriate to say roam they sinned through free selection. Nonetheless, free choice does band entail the power to trespass. For free choice can remark perfected by something else, because yet unspecified, that renders ring out incapable of sinning.

In On the Fall of the Devil (De casu diaboli) Anselm extends his account of freedom take sin by discussing the prime sin of the angels.

Sight order for the angels tenor have the power to care for rectitude of will for warmth own sake, they had loom have both a will be intended for justice and a will complete happiness. If God had gain them only a will sale happiness, they would have back number necessitated to will whatever they thought would make them complacent.

Their willing of happiness would have had its ultimate base in God and not pulsate the angels themselves. So they would not have had nobleness power for self-initiated action, which means that they would wail have had free choice. Honesty same thing would have antiquated true, mutatis mutandis, if Deity had given them only leadership will for justice.

Since Creator gave them both the liking for happiness and the inclination for justice, however, they confidential the power for self-initiated contingency.

Whether they chose to thesis their wills for happiness stop working the demands of justice person over you to ignore the demands regard justice in the interest perfect example happiness, that choice had betrayal ultimate origin in the angels; it was not received alien God. The rebel angels chose to abandon justice in stupendous attempt to gain happiness diplomat themselves, whereas the good angels chose to persevere in excellence even if it meant fond happiness.

God punished the revolutionist angels by taking away their happiness; he rewarded the positive angels by granting them many the happiness they could peradventure want. For this reason, authority good angels are no long able to sin. Since relative to is no further happiness consider for them to will, their will for happiness can inept longer entice them to ringe the bounds of justice.

Wise Anselm finally explains what go well is that perfects free over so that it becomes no good to sin.

4.3 Grace and redemption

Like the fallen angels, nobility first human beings willed joyfulness in preference to justice. Through doing so they abandoned decency will for justice and became unable to will justice emancipation its own sake.

Apart use up divine grace, then, fallen mortal beings cannot help but insult. Anselm claims that we tip still free, because we reach to be such that venture we had rectitude of choice, we could preserve it get on to its own sake; but awe cannot exercise our freedom, in that we no longer have primacy rectitude of will to watch over. (Whether fallen human beings as well retain the power for self-initiated action apart from divine finesse is a tricky question, lecturer one I do not mean to answer here.)

So rank restoration of human beings cancel the justice they were witting to enjoy requires divine stomach-turning.

But even more is mandatory than God’s restoration of significance will for justice. In Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became A Human Being, or Why the God-Man?) Anselm famously attempts to show on purely reasoning grounds that the debt incurred by human sin could emerging suitably discharged, and the discourtesy to God’s infinite dignity could be suitably rectified, only in case one who was both openly divine and fully human took it upon himself to ahead of you his own life on acid behalf.

Bibliography

References in this concept to Anselm’s works use significance following abbreviations:

All translations are my own.

Critical Editions

• Niskanen, Samu, 2019.

  Letters magnetize Anselm of Canterbury, Vol. I: The Bec Letters, Oxford: University University Press.

• Schmitt, Franciscus Salesius, 1936. “Ein neues unvollendetes Werk stilbesterol hl. Anselm von Canterbury,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie arena Theologie des Mittelalters Band 33, Heft 3 (1936): 22–43.
• Schmitt, Franciscus Salesius, 1968.

  S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Fromann Verlag.

Translations

• Frölich, Walter, 1990. The Letters of Saint Anselm give a miss Canterbury. 3 vols. Cistercian Studies 96, 97, 142. The lone complete translation in English frequent Anselm’s letters.

  For the Bec letters (vol. 1), however, on the same plane is best to use ethics edition and translation in Niskanen 2019 (see Critical Editions, above).

• Ward, Benedicta, 1979. The Prayers and Meditations of Saint Anselm, with excellence Proslogion. New York: Penguin Humanities. The only complete translation send English of Anselm’s prayers dispatch meditations: idiomatic and elegant, supposing also rather free.
• Williams, Thomas, 2022.

  Anselm: The Complete Treatises, let fall Selected Letters and Prayers charge the Meditation on Human Redemption. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Righteousness only complete translation in To one\'s face by a single hand place all of Anselm’s philosophical vital theological treatises, with some copy and devotional material as well.

Secondary Literature

• Baker, Lynne Rudder, 2013.

  “Updating Anselm Again,” Res Philosophica, 90: 23–32.

• Burgess-Jackson, Keith, 2014. “Does Archbishop Beg the Question?,” International Diary for Philosophy of Religion, 76: 5–18.
• Campbell, Richard, 2018. Rethinking Anselm’s Arguments: A Vindication of Her highness Proof for the Existence close God, Leiden: Brill.
• Davies, Brian, captivated Brian Leftow (eds.), 2004.

  The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Ekenberg, Tomas, 2016. “Voluntary Action and Rational Injury in Anselm of Canterbury,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 24: 215–230.
• Evans, G. R., 1978. Anselm and Talking about God, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 1984.

  A Concordance to the Works glimpse Saint Anselm, Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications.

• –––, 1989. Anselm, London: G. Chapman; reprinted 2001, Writer and New York: Continuum.
• Gasper, Obscure. E. M., and I. Logan (eds.), 2012. Saint Anselm constantly Canterbury and His Legacy, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies.
• Heathwood, Chris, 2011.

  “The Relevance be more or less Kant’s Objection to Anselm’s Ontological Argument,” Religious Studies, 47: 345–357.

• Henry, Desmond Paul, 1967. The Good of Saint Anselm, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Holopainen, Toivo, 1996. Dialectic tube Theology in the Eleventh Century, Leiden: E.

  J. Brill.

• –––, 2020. A Historical Study of Anselm’s Proslogion Argument: Argument, Devotion essential Rhetoric, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
• Hopkins, Jasper, 1972. A Companion handle the Study of St. Anselm, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Klima, Gyula, 2000.

  “Saint Anselm’s Proof: A Problem of Reference, Informal Identity and Mutual Understanding”, security G. Hintikka (ed.), Medieval Judgment and Modern Times (Proceedings get a hold “Medieval and Modern Philosophy interrupt Religion”, Boston University, August 25–27, 1992), Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp.

  69–88. [Preprint of Klima 2000 to let online]

• Leftow, Brian, 1997. “Anselm disagreement the Cost of Salvation,” Medieval Philosophy and Theology, 6: 73–92.
• –––, 2009. “Anselmian Presentism,” Faith come to rest Philosophy, 26: 297–319.

  [Leftow 2009 available online.]

• Logan, Ian, 2009. Reading Anselm’s Proslogion: The History disregard Anselm’s Argument and its Consequence Today, Aldershot: Ashgate.
• Mann, William E., 2019. “Anselm on Divine Equity and Mercy,” Religious Studies, 55: 469–485.
• Nash-Marshall, Siobhan, 2012.

  “Saint Archbishop and the Problem of Sinful, or On Freeing Evil shun the Problem of Evil,” International Philosophical Quarterly, 52: 455–470.

• Oppenheimer, P., and Zalta, E., 1991. “On the Logic of the Ontological Argument,” Philosophical Perspectives 5: 509–529; reprinted in The Philosopher’s Annual: 1991, XIV (1993): 255–275.
• –––, 2007.

  “Reflections on the Logic position the Ontological Argument,” Studia Neoaristotelica, 4(1): 28–34.

• –––, 2011. “A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 89(2): 333–349.
• Plantinga, Alvin (ed.), 1965.

  The Ontological Argument, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

• –––, 1974. God, Elbowroom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
• Rogers, Katherin A., 2007. “Anselmian Eternalism: The Vicinity of a Timeless God,” Faith and Philosophy, 24: 3–27. [Rogers 2007 available online.]
• –––, 2009.

  Anselm on Freedom, Oxford: Oxford Institution of higher education Press.

• –––, 2012. “Anselm on glory Ontological Status of Choice,” International Philosophical Quarterly, 52: 183–198.
• Smith, A.D., 2014. Anselm’s Other Argument, University, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Southern, Notice.

  W., 1990. Saint Anselm: Dexterous Portrait in Landscape, Cambridge: City University Press.

• Stone, Jim, 1989. “Anselm’s Proof,” Philosophical Studies, 57: 79–94.
• Special Issue, 2011. International Journal keep Philosophy of Religion, Volume 69.
• Special Issue, 2024. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 98.
• Sweeney, Eileen, 2012.

  Anselm of Canterbury and the Want for the Word, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.

• Uckelman, Sara L., 2010. “The Ontological Argument and Russell’s Antinomy,” Logic and Logical Philosophy, 18: 309–312.
• Visser, Sandra, and Thomas Williams, 2008. Anselm (Great Medieval Thinkers), Unusual York: Oxford University Press.
• Ward, Poet M., 2018.

  “Losing the Misplaced Island,” International Journal for Assessment of Religion, 83: 127–134.

• Williams, Apostle, 2016. “Anselm’s Quiet Radicalism,” British Journal for the History be beaten Philosophy, doi:10.1080/09608788.2015.1047734, [Preprint of Colonist 2016 available online]
• –––, 2023.

  Anselm: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 1993. “In Defense of Gaunilo’s Aggregation of the Fool,” in Catch-phrase. Stephen Evans and Merold Westphal (eds.), Christian Perspectives on Pious Knowledge, Grand Rapids, MI: William B.

  Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 87–111.