God as Form of all that exists

Anselm addressed the issue of the existence of God in his Monologium about 200 years before Aquinas’ five-part proof. It’s interesting to note that Anselm seems to be rather reluctant to put down his thoughts on the issue. In the preface, he writes:

Certain brethren have often and earnestly entreated me to put in writing some thoughts that I had offered them in familiar conversation on the Being of God and on some other topics connected with this subject, under the form of a meditation on these themes. It is in accordance with their wish, rather than my ability, that they have prescribed such a form for the writing of this meditation. (Source: Monologium as reprinted in St. Anselm’s Basic Writings. Trans. S.N. Deane. Open Court Publishing, 1962. Pg. 81)

He goes on to emphasize the "cogency of reason" and the "light of truth" as the basis for his proofs.

Platonic Leanings

Anselm takes a different route in his proof of God than Aquinas, though the two philosophers are not so distant as to disagree with each other. Upon reading their works, one can see they are certainly talking about the same God. However, while Aristotle serves as the philosophical base for Aquinas, Plato seems to have inspired Anselm.

This conclusion is drawn from the words he uses when defining God. The words are much the same as those used by Plato when explaining his idea of the Forms. Anselm explains how God exists as God in much the same way Plato would describe how a chair exists specifically as a chair.

That seems a little confusing, and now that I’ve written it, I’m not sure I’ve got that straight. Perhaps an explanation of Plato’s idea of the Forms will help.

Plato’s Forms

Plato argued that each thing is specifically what it is because it is such by its participation in something else. AH! Even more confusion.

Let’s take a chair for an example. Plato would say that a chair is a chair because it has the necessary characteristics of being a chair. Let’s say a chair is something you sit in. Then, when you see a chair, you recognize it as such because you know it is something you would sit in.

Of course, there are many things that you could sit in, and there are other things you could use a chair for. There also are infinitely different kinds, colors, and types of chairs. Yet, there is some quality that all chairs must have in order for them to be defined as chairs.

Plato would call this quality a Form. He would say that all chairs exist as chairs (as opposed to stools or tables or any other thing) in that they share in this Form.

Anselm’s discussion of God

If there is a Form by which chairs are chairs, there must be a Form by which other things are other things. Tables have an overruling Form, as do stools, desks, computers, paper clips, etc.

Anselm recognized this and decided that there must be a Form of existence as well. There is a Form by which all existing things EXIST! This is existence itself. In the first chapter of the Monologium, Anselm concludes, "there is a being which is best, and greatest, and highest of all existing beings" (83). It is this being "which confers upon and effects in all other beings, through its omnipotent goodness, the very fact of their existence" (84).

Anselm defines God as that being which confers existence upon all.

He then goes on to say that there is varying degrees of goodness in different things in existence: "Since it is certain, then, that all goods, if mutually compared, would prove either equally or unequally good, necessarily they are all good by virtue of something which is conceived of as the same in different goods" (85).

That is, there is something known as goodness, by which other things partake and are therefore found good, though in a lesser degree. There is a Form of goodness, also known as God.

God as prior to all

God, then, is defined by Anselm as the Form of goodness and the Form of existence. God is that by which things are good, and God is that by which things exist. He is the quality by which we can say a chair exists (not as a chair, but that it exists at all) and that it is good.

Now, Anselm goes on to argue that "this Nature [God] … derives existence from itself, and other beings [derive existence] from it" (91). Anselm recognizes that he must point out that God is prior to all existing things. Before the existence of things, existence itself must have existed. That is, without that quality of existence, NOTHING CAN EXIST. He re-emphasizes this point later: "Those things which were created from nothing had an existence before their creation in the thought of the Creator" (101).

Conclusion

Plato described there is a Form or quality by which things are what they are. Anselm expanded this in an effort to prove God’s existence. He defined God as the Form of existence and goodness.

The similarity to Aquinas can be noted in the need for priority. God is in Anselm’s term "a being which is best, and greatest, and highest of all existing beings." According to Aquinas, God is the uncaused cause and the prime mover. In both cases, God’s existence necessarily must come before the existence of anything else.

This very brief discussion of Anselm’s proof cannot begin to do justice to the genius of his work. The reader is strongly encouraged to find a copy of the Monologium and read it.

Chris Mosmeyer
June 3, 1998

The existence of God: Conclusion