Abstract
Semen Frank (1877–1950) was one of the first and most ardent advocates of the ontological argument in the twentieth century. He proposed an original interpretation of the ontological argument based on its analogy to Descartes’ Cogito. Frank believed that it is possible to develop Cogito ergo sum into Cogito ergo est ens absolutum. In this paper, I analyze his version of the ontological argument. First, I propose a simple reconstruction of his reasoning, paying attention to its hidden premise. Second, departing from the classical logical interpretations of Descartes’ argument, I show that for Frank the claim that God exists had the same logical properties as Cogito. As a result, it seems that his argument was formally correct, though based on a premise which could hardly be convincing for a non-believer. This should not be surprising, however, since Frank, as most Russian religious philosophers, was not interested in the project of philosophical theology. His main concern was rather the development of philosophy based on religious premises, which might be called “theological philosophy”.
Highlights
The great Russian religious philosopher, Semen L
Cogito ergo sum was the subject of interesting discussions in analytic philosophy, which may be used to analyze cogito ergo est ens absolutum
I will turn to two key points in his discussion of the proof: the criticism of Anselm’s standard formulation from the second chapter of the Proslogion and the comparison of the ontological argument with Cartesian cogito
Summary
Semen Frank attended to ontological proof in his works several times, indicating, in turn, its role in the theory of knowledge, tracking its long and intricate history, and analyzing its significance for the philosophy of religion. Frank’s interesting notes from this period, found in the philosopher’s archive in New York, have been published recently (Frank 2017; Obolevitch and Tsygankov 2017) Frank developed his interpretation of the ontological argument and placed it in the new context of the philosophy of religion, up until his reflections on the proof were mainly grounded in the theory of knowledge The second version of the argument, presented by Anselm in the third chapter of Proslogion, and even better in reply to criticism of Gaunilion, is, according to Frank, much more adequate The comparison of both versions of Anselm’s argument reveals, as I believe, how Frank himself understood the very nature of ontological proof. Frank’s version seems to be an original and unique development of the ontological argument
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
