99. In Chapters Two and Three of the Proslogion, Anselm
establishes to his satisfaction that God exists and cannot not exist. In
Chapters Five and Six, Anselm seems to derive or deduce some of God’s
attributes. In Chapters Six through Fourteen, he discusses a number of problems
his derivations seem to entail. Chapter Fifteen culminates with Anselm saying,
“[Y]ou are something greater than can be thought.” Explain how Anselm derives
the divine attributes from what he does in Chapters Two and Three, why the divine
attributes are problematic, and both why his statement in Chapter Fifteen,
“[Y]ou are something greater than can be thought,” is puzzling and what it
contributes to the discussion.
RW:
This question is basically identical to #94 (which I also outlined); those two
outlines only differ in the language used (not the content), and are largely
unchanged from previous years’ work (esp. used: 2009/11). As is my custom, I reformatted, but
didn’t add an intro (the question gives the necessary structure).
Note: this outline uses TNG as
shorthand for “That whom nothing greater can be thought” and GCT for “greater than can
be thought.”
I) How Anselm derives the divine attributes
A)
The opening demonstration (chs. 2-3) shows that God exists and is “that
than which nothing greater can be thought” (=TNG)
B)
Anselm derives the other divine attributes from his fundamental
conception of God as TNG. God has those properties that are great making.
1) “God is whatever is better
to be than not to be” (ch. 5)
2) The qualities: justice,
truth, happiness, percipient, omnipotent, merciful, impassible & whatever else is better to be than not”
II) Why the divine attributes are problematic
A)
Certain attributes seem in tension and incompatible with each other
1)
While Scotus added non-contradiction to the definition of TNG, Anselm
seems simply to have assumed that God could not possess properties which were
actually contradictory.
B)
The specific paradoxes
1)
How can he be percipient
even though He is not a body?
(a) It seems that only corporeal
things should be able to perceive because perception depends on the senses, and
those exist in a body.
(b) Solution
(i) Perception is aimed at
knowledge
(ii) Therefore it is appropriate
to say that whatever knows also perceives, even if in a very different way from
humans.
(iii) TNG is percipient, in that
He knows everything about which people have sensation
(iv) But he knows sensible things
in a higher, immaterial, better way
2)
How can he omnipotent
if there are things he cannot do?
(a) God can’t do things that are
evil (e.g., lying, and “making the true false”) or things that involve
imperfection (e.g, being corrupted).
(b) Solution
(i) Confusion of language: The
ability to lie, etc., are misleadingly called “abilities” or “powers,” since
they are actually weaknesses–one who does these things makes himself weaker,
giving evil power over him.
(ii) Thus one “can” do these
things in virtue of weakness, not strength. (One way to read this is that God
is better for being necessarily as powerful as he is—it is not possible for
evil to have power over him.)
3)
How can he be merciful
and impassible?
(a) If God is impassible, then
he does not feel compassion; and if he does not fee compassion then he does not
experience sorrow (= being merciful, according to Anselm; the two are
linguistically related.)
(b) Solution
(i) TNG is merciful in relation
to us (that is, he performs merciful actions to us and we feel the related
emotions)
(ii) But TNG is not merciful in
relation to himself (that is, he does not feel the emotions, like sorrow,
associated with mercy).
4)
How can he be both just
and merciful? (The hardest
one)
(a)
It seems to contradict God’s perfect justice to spare the wicked. (ch.
9)
(b) Solution
(i) Anselm seems to suggest
several answers in this section, but after each returns again to the puzzle as
if it has not been laid to rest. In the end he suggests that “only what you
will is just, and only what you do not will is not just.” I take it he thinks
this is the closest thing he has to a solution.
(ii) However, Anselm doesn’t seem
confident that this really solves the quandary, and, even if this explains why
God can be good even in sparing the wicked, he concludes that “no reasoning can
understand why” God, in his goodness, chooses to be merciful to some and not
others who are alike in wickedness.
(iii) Here are several other
things he says in addressing the problem that he doesn’t seem to regard as
conclusive:
(i) It is better to be good to
both good and wicked people. Also, it is better to be good to the unjust
through both punishment and sparing than just through punishment; thus, TNG is
merciful because he is good.
(ii) We must believe that mercy
is compatible with justice, for we know TNG to be good and one cannot be good
without being just.
(iii) In sparing the wicked TNG is
just in relation to Himself (His goodness), but not just in relation to us
1. But we do experience God’s mercy
when he saves us. (Here, it looks like he’s just to himself, and merciful to
us)
2. Yet, it is also just, in
relation to himself, for God to punish the wicked (because its supremely just
to punish the wicked)
3. Conclusion: justice requires
mercy, since God is being just to Himself (His goodness) in showing mercy to
sinners. But, it is still just to punish sinners, & we cannot understand
why God shows mercy & punishes when he does.
III) What “You
are something greater than can be thought” contributes
A)
Anselm learns about God
1) Being greater than can
be thought (GCT) is one more
great-making attribute:
(a) It is possible to think of a
being that is greater than we finite creatures can think of (so it seems
possible that there be one).
(b) Such a being would be greater
than one we can think of.
(c) Thus, TNG is GCT.
2) The justice dilemma may be
taken as evidence that there are some things about God that are beyond our
understanding
(a) Anselm thinks we can be
confident that justice/mercy don’t conflict but we aren’t certain how this is so.
B)
Anselm learns about his relation to God: “How & Why God is Both
Seen & Unseen by Those Who Seek Him”
1)
Seen:
We have found that God is TNG, and (thus) that God is happiness, truth,
goodness, just, merciful, omnipotent, percipient, impassible, etc.
(a)
Whatever Anselm has seen, he has seen through God’s light.
2)
Unseen:
Yet, why does my soul not perceive you?
(a)
Perhaps Anselm did see God’s
light and truth, but not all of God;
he did not see God as He really is.
(b) The soul ever strives to see
more, but cannot see completely because of its own darkness.
IV) Why “You are
something greater than can be thought” is puzzling
A)
The (putative) puzzle
1)
Our understanding is too weak to grasp God (TNG) because he is a being
GCT (and the soul has been weakened by sin).
B)
Anselm thinks this is NOT problematic for premise #1 of the opening
demonstration (= that God is TNG) (see 44-5)
1)
God as the object/referent of
“TNG” is “something greater than can be thought.”
2)
Nevertheless, the words “TNG”
are still capable of being comprehended, and thus exist in the understanding.
(a)
Moreover, Anselm’s resolution of the conflict between the divine
attributes shows that TNG is not a false thing. It is possible. (Or as Scotus will add, God is TNG w/out a contradiction.)
[RW: Perhaps it would be more straightforward cover
the puzzle before showing what GCT contributes? Still, I kept what the collective wisdom thinks is right.]
No comments:
Post a Comment