Is the God of the Philosophers That Which Nothing Greater Can be Conceived?

Abstract

Even though famous designation of as id quo mains non cogitari potest (that which nothing greater can be conceived) by 11th century Catholic theologian, Anselm of Canterbury does not, to my knowledge, appear in any of writings of those whom we might well call classical Jewish rationalists, cannot imagine that any of them would disagree with it in principle. This designation would seem to fit what could be called the of viz., Absolute. Yet, it also means that we cannot see this in all the i. e., all those philosophers who still speak of God. Thus we can see this in of Aristotle or in of Plotinus or in of Spinoza, but not in god of Plato or in god of Whitehead; in of Hegel and in of Hermann Cohen, but not in god of Kant. So, even though this is not of all philosophers, it is still useful for contemporary Jewish rationalists to consider this formula in our attempts to engage in serious philosophical Godtalk, i. e., theo-logy. As modern philosophers, however, we must focus our discussion in context of linguistic orientation of modern philosophy, be it analytic or phenomenological. Accordingly, question Is of Philosophers That Which Nothing Greater Can be Conceived! requires a close look at how name is used in our discourse, i.e., when it is still used at all. It would seem that we first have to distinguish how name is used as a universal name from how it is used as a singular name, and then how universal name of and singular name of are interrelated in Jewish Godtalk. Universal naming designates minimal criteria that any singular or specific name must fulfill in order to be cogently assigned to one so named. And so, when proclaims to Israel I am Lord your God (Exodus 20:2), Israel must have some idea of what word