Abstract
This paper provides replies to the objections Tony Roark presented (Roark, T. 2003. ”Conceptual closure in Anselm's proof“, History and Philosophy of Logic 24) to my reconstruction of Anselm's famous argument in the Proslogion (Klima, G. 2000. ‘Saint Anselm's Proof: A Problem of Reference, Intentional Identity and Mutual Understanding’, in G. Holmström-Hintikka, Medieval Philosophy and Modern Times, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 69–87). The replies argue that Roark's objections actually strengthen the general conclusion of my original paper concerning the different attitudes one can take toward Anselm's argument, depending on whether one refers to that than which nothing greater can be thought ‘constitutively” or ‘parasitically?”. In agreement with Roark, however, at the end of the paper I also indicate some of the broader implications of this distinction worthy of further exploration.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
