How does St. Anselm use the example of the painter to explain the difference between something that exists only in the understanding, and something that exists both in the understanding and in reality?
How successful is this example in supporting the conclusion of his ontological argument for the existence of God?
The painter analogy is part of St. Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God, which is part of the Proslogion. It wasn’t an ontological system he was proposing but he was concerned with the nature of being. St. Anselm believed that there were two types of beings, necessary beings, or, beings that cannot not exist and also contingent beings, or, beings that may exist but are not necessary or required to exist. His argument starts with a definition of God, or necessary assumptions about the nature of God: “we believe that God is something in which nothing greater can be imagined to exist.” He then asks if God exists and in the guise of a fool he answers that God does not.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"The Painter Analogy from St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument".
Anselm goes on to refute the fool by first showing that God exists in understanding (in one’s mind or imagination). When Anselm says that nothing greater can be imagined, the fool understands what he is hearing and what he hears is in his understanding (he can imagine it), it doesn’t matter if the fool understands this. It is one thing to be able to imagine something and another to understand that something exists. To explain this argument Anselm uses the painter analogy. When a painter imagines in his mind what he wants to paint it is in his mind and not in reality, but when he has already painted it, it is both in his mind and in reality.
The painter understands this. Even the fool can agree that at least in the mind something that nothing greater can be imagined because when he hears this he understands it and when he understands it, it is in his mind. He goes on with the argument to say that in which something greater cannot be imagined cannot exist in the mind alone because it can be imagined to exist in reality too, that is greater than the imagination. This is the contradiction that Anselm uses to prove the existence of God. If there exists something that nothing greater can be imagined then it must exist in the mind and in reality too, for if it doesn’t then something greater can be imagined, and that cannot be. To put is in simple terms: God is by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. Existence in reality is greater than existence in imagination. God must exist in reality, if God did not, then God would not be that which nothing greater can be imagined.
The painter analogy isn’t completely successful in supporting Anselm’s argument for the existence of God. But it does help illustrate the point he is trying to make in order to get to his major argument point. The painter analogy simply shows that one can imagine something to exist and know that it does not exist in reality and also that something in reality exists both in reality and in the imagination. Another premise Anselm wants to be taken from this analogy is that it is greater to exist in reality than it is to merely exist in the imagination. In that sense it does support his argument but in order to get to that point he has to introduce another assumption.
The assumption is that something which nothing greater can be imagined cannot just exist in the imagination alone, it must, by definition, exist in reality too because to exist in reality is greater than just existing in the imagination, therefore if you imagine nothing greater, it must exist in reality too. Anselm’s point is to make the denial of the existence of God a logical fallacy or a logical contradiction that can only be corrected by the existence of God. Basically his total argument is this: 1. God is the greatest thing that can be imagined. 2. The concept of God can be imagined by humans. 3. God doesn’t exist in reality. 4. Humans can imagine God existing in reality. 5. An entity that exists in the imagination and in reality is greater than if it was only imagined. 6. If 1,2,4 and 5 are correct, which they are, then 3 is wrong and God must exist.
The painter analogy helps establish this argument by creating the distinction between something imagined and something existing in reality and that if one knows something exists in reality it also exists in the imagination and a person can understand this. St. Anselm also makes another argument for the existence of God in the third chapter of the Proslogion. This argument is kind of similar to part of the argument containing the painter analogy. He argues that if God is that which nothing greater can be conceived, it is better to be necessary than to be contingent. Therefore, God by definition must be necessary and therefore God must exist. Or, to put it another way: God is that entity that compared to which we cannot conceive anything greater than. It is greater to be necessary than to not be necessary. Therefore, God must be necessary. Since God is necessary, God must exist.
