In Defense of Anselm

Mark Webb

In Defense of Anselm

Philosophy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

David Truncellito provides an analysis of Anselm’s ontological argument according to which Anselm’s use of the term ‘God’ equivocates between purported reference to a being and reference to the idea of that being. I argue that this interpretation does not capture Anselm’s intent, and offer another analysis of the argument that charges Anselm with a different equivocation.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	54-57
Journal	Philo
State	Published - 2005

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'In Defense of Anselm'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

@article{7c23aba646214c249902c5a8f26fff48,

title = "In Defense of Anselm",

abstract = "David Truncellito provides an analysis of Anselm{\textquoteright}s ontological argument according to which Anselm{\textquoteright}s use of the term {\textquoteleft}God{\textquoteright} equivocates between purported reference to a being and reference to the idea of that being. I argue that this interpretation does not capture Anselm{\textquoteright}s intent, and offer another analysis of the argument that charges Anselm with a different equivocation.",

author = "Mark Webb",

year = "2005",

language = "English",

pages = "54--57",

journal = "Philo",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In Defense of Anselm

AU - Webb, Mark

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - David Truncellito provides an analysis of Anselm’s ontological argument according to which Anselm’s use of the term ‘God’ equivocates between purported reference to a being and reference to the idea of that being. I argue that this interpretation does not capture Anselm’s intent, and offer another analysis of the argument that charges Anselm with a different equivocation.

AB - David Truncellito provides an analysis of Anselm’s ontological argument according to which Anselm’s use of the term ‘God’ equivocates between purported reference to a being and reference to the idea of that being. I argue that this interpretation does not capture Anselm’s intent, and offer another analysis of the argument that charges Anselm with a different equivocation.

M3 - Article

SP - 54

EP - 57

JO - Philo

JF - Philo

ER -