These are freshmen, first semester. Who knows what their high school education was like

Glad that the video was helpful for you

Glad they've been useful for you!

That's so funny, thinking that only monks would understand God in that way.

@@GregoryBSadler I think I'm struggling with the definition of God as "that which no greater is able to be thought". I'm lumping it in with ancient religion lazily using God to explain the unexplainable. Like thunder being a power of the Greek gods because the nature of thunder wasn't understood at the time. Defining "that which no greater is able to be thought" as God because its beyond our understanding or imagination seems unsatisfying from my point of view. However, when I move past that objection and just accept Anselms definition of God as "that which no greater is able to be though" the rest of the argument makes a lot of sense.

+David Viscuso Anselm doesn't say the "greatest conceivable being" exists. He says "that than which nothing greater can be thought" can be proven to exist by this portion of the "unum argumentem" - you'll want to look at the text

Well, I do host online events each month - and occasionally hold full online classes. I also do travel to do public speaking

Depends on what you mean by "proves". That's a rather ambiguous term

Since most philosophers would unhesitatingly reply with a "no" to that question, I'd count it as an interesting biographical discovery if you should respond affirmatively to my question on even the weakest sense of the word "prove"

David Viscuso Sure, you can think about God any way you like, I suppose, including taking some of Thomas' ideas about God. Anselm is doing something a bit different here than what Thomas does

Gregory B. Sadler I really enjoy your lectures and I will actually watch the Anselm one again. But what does Anselm do, that Descartes does differently in his ontological argument?

Well... That's answered easily in a lexical level by just looking at what the argumentation in the text says. Anselm isn't doing the same thing as Descartes either. Although it is handy for classification, there really isn't one "ontological argument" of which Anselm's, Descartes', Sponoza's, etc would merely be variations. On a deeper level, Anselm's "argument" is not just proslogion 2 or 2-4. It's the entire text, minus the last three chapters (which are supplementary "conjectiones")

David Viscuso After Anselm wrote the Proslogion, a couple of authors such as Gaunilo, John Duns Scotus and Aquinas wrote on it, only for it to be largly neglected afterwards until Descartes formulated his own ontological argument in the 17th century. He did not mention Anselm as his precursor ( the irony is, though in a different respect, that Anselm himself refrained from quoting authority too, e.g. sola ratione) but it is possible, if not likely, that he has never read Anselm and thus came up with his own argument. In support of this, it has been mentioned that his ontological argument is consistent with the rest of his philosophy. His definition of God differs slightly from that of Anselms ( a Supreme Perfect Being v.s. that than which a greater cannot be thought) and he views God as a coherent truth that can be comparable to the truth of mathematical concepts. He argues that just like a triangle entails that the sum of all its angles is 180 degrees ( non-euclidean space was not discovered back then), or that an equilateral triangle entails that it is equiangular, so too is the truth of God such that it is a necessary being. As a realist ( a person that regards concepts to have some existential value), linking the concept of God to mathematical concepts, was a strong move. Perhaps the main difference between the two is the following. Whereas Anselm regarded his inquiry into the existence of god as fides quaerens intellectum ( faith seeking understanding), or in a similar expression, credo ut intelligam ( I believe so that I may understand), for Descartes this seems to have been the other way around, as he believed one discovers truth by reason. The two are similar to some extent, however Anselm thought that faith was a necessary prerequisite to understanding, and Descartes, to my knowledge, did not. In any case, Descartes revived the interest in the ontological argument, which is why the ontological argument today has such a rich history, including the authors mentioned above; Kant's criticism, Gödels formalized version, and alot of other symbolic representations of the argument, such as those of Hartshorne, Priest, Jaquette and most recently, issue 17 of the logical analysis and history of philosophy (LAHP) has Anselm as it's subject. If you are interested in the different versions of the ontological argument, I can recommend Plantinga's 'The ontological argument, from St. Anselm to contemporary philosophers' - it included both Anselm's and Descartes' version. For a better comprehension of Anselm's argument, the articles by Brian Leftow and Brian Davies in the Cambridge companion to Anselm, or Southern's authoritative book Saint Anselm (pp 113-137), would be a good starting point. Gregory B. Sadler Thank you for uploading this lecture. I have watched your video on how you became an Anselm scholar too, with pleasure, as I can identify with your story since I'm currently writing a thesis on Anselm myself. It only attests to Anselm's brilliance that his argument can inspire and fascinate atheists and theists alike. I would like to read your 'The Ontological Proof, the Option, and the Unique Necessaire', however, when I request the article It seems to redirect me away from the DOAJ. Is there, perhaps, another way I can access it?

Sometimes Academia.edu can be glitchy, but it actually downloads from the Academia.edu site, if you click Download. If it doesn't work for you, email me at greg@reasonio.com

David Viscuso In a word, no

Critical Thinking, Logic, and Argumentation (ReasonIO) By any chance, do you have any lectures on the philosophy of G.K Chesterton? He is sort of interesting Catholic lay figure, like myself.

David Viscuso Hahaha! -- that's what happens when you're juggling multiple channels! Chesterton? No, not at this time? He is someone I do like quite a bit, so, down the line. . . .